Price  Bockbtore,!^. 
I80N.  Second  St  ,  % 
hor  above  Vvne>  P^^i^:% 


ff 

03 

'$ 

tf 

/? 

3 

^ 

OS 

1 

.i.^ 

IE 

r-s» 

•^ 

Q. 

^-i^ 

<-+- 

'Sj 

iz; 

o 

^ 

$ 

l^"^ 

a> 

o 

c 

1 

«-► 

o 

tJ) 

rv 

5 

E-i 
O 

5>r 

|Zi 

E 

.§ 

<<> 

M 

(0 

■S 

J7^ 

rt 

CO 

1^ 

fM 

s 

^4 

o 

^ 

^ 

% 

c 

s 

^ 

0) 
to 

1 

^ 

CL 

1 

\  . 


f- 

/  •  • 


PREFACE, 

My  apology  for  offering  these  few  pages  to  the 
oublic,  is  found  in  the  history  of  the  recent  gloriows 
revival  of  rehgion  in  this  city.  Soon  after  I  came  to 
:his  place,  God  poured  out  his  Spirit  upon  the  Baptist 
church  and  congregation,  and  many  were  converted. 
The  first  Lord's  day  in  April,  I  baptized  27  ;  the  sec- 
ond, 54,  and  so  on,  until  near  200  were  added  by  bap- 
iism,  and  20  or  30  by  letter.  At  this  time,  sprinkling, 
pouring,  dipping,  and  close  communioa  became  the  to- 
pic among  our  opponents.  To  put  a  stop  to  this,  and 
turn  the  attention  of  the  people  to  the  Bible.  I  made 
public  this  proposition  :  "  I  will  put  myself  under  legal 
bonds,  to  pay  as  a  free  reward,  $3000,  for  finding  in 
any  of  the  received  versions  of  the  Bible,  sprinkling  or 
pouring  for  the  action,  and  infants  for  the  subjects  of 
baptism, — $1000  to  be  paid  on  finding  each  of  the 
above.  To  decide  this  impartially,  the  texts  supposed 
to  contain  the  doctrine  shall  be  submitted,  without  de- 
bate, to  Dr.  Taylor,  of  Yale  College,  and  two  learn- 
ed pious  Quakers.  This  proposition  must  be  accept- 
ed by  some  clergyman  or  respectable  member  of  one 
of  the  churches  of  this  city. '"  No  one  accepted  the 
offer :  but  directly,  pulpits,  presses,  pamphlets  and 
nev/spapers.  like  so  many  guns  from  a  common  batte- 
ry, were  made  to  bear  upon  the  Baptist  church  and 
her  doctrines,  and  every  movement  in  the  religious 
community  indicated  a  war  of  words.  I  made  appli- 
cation to  respond  through  the  '•-  Chronicle,"  but  was 
promptly -refused.  These,  with  other  circum^stances 
and  events  of  the  time,  furnish  at  once  an  occasion 
and  an  apology  for  my  present  effort. 


It  IS  obvious" that  error  often  changes  its  connection^ 
assumes  new  positions,  and  accommodates  itself  to 
•  prevailing  customs  and  prejudices  ;  therefore  we  must 
be  ready  to  meet  it  with  weapons  corresponding  with 
the  mode  of  attack.  For  instance,  the  editor  of  the 
Chronicle,  professing  to  be  wise,  gives  us  the  m.eaning 

Oi  the  word  (^ami'Zio,  thus  :    ^anTiCo)  :  ^ge;(U),  to  wet:  "/TiOis- 

ten.  bedew.  In  turn.  I  will  give  him  the  meaning  of 
the  phrase,  "Editor  of  the  Chronicle."  thus:  "  Rdi- 
TOR  OF  THE  Chronicle  :"'  Bat  :  a  fiying  motive; 
a  qiiadj^iiped  weighing  about  one  ounce.  See  John 
lii.  19,  20'.  '  ' 

h\  judicial  controversies,  much  depends  on  good  ev- 
idence. Suppose  there  were  two  associations  or  com- 
panies of  men  in  this  city,  of  ten  each,  which  were 
obliged  to  appeal  to  a  legal  tribunal  to  establish  their 
respective  claims,  and  all  the  evidence  they  have  is 
within  themselves,  You  will  see  at  once  there  can 
be  nothing  done,  on  the  principles  of  law  or  equity, 
except  one  company  can  draw  testimony  from  the  ad- 
verse party.  This  principle  of  jurisprudence  must  be 
carried  into  all  polemic  religious  discussions.  Novtr 
the  world  is  divided  into  Baptist  and  Pedobaptist  bo- 
dies, and  the  line  of  demarcation  is  visible,  and  testi- 
mony to  sustain  their  respective  claims  to  evangelical 
truth  must  be  drav/n  from  one  or  the  other  of  these 
bodies.  Reason  says,  7iot  from  our  own,  but  from  the 
adverse.  I  have  been  amused,  however,  v/hile  exam- 
ining the  course  pursued  by  our  pedobaptist  brethren; 
they  never  quote  Baptist  evidence  to  prove  that  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling  are  baptism,  and  infants  the  sub- 
jects;  and  for  the  best  of  reasons:  they  can  find  no 
such  concessions.  The  testimony  which  they  urge, 
is  the  faith  and  practice  of  Roman  Catholics  and  mod- 
^  era  pedobaptists  ;  but  while  they  preseat  me  with  no- 
thing but  pedobaptist  evidence,  they  only  prove  to  mc 
that  their  cause  i^  indefensible      In  proving  that  be 


lievers  are  the  only  subjects,  and  immersion  the  only- 
action  of  Christian  baptism,  we  design  not  to  introduce 
one  modern  Baptist  evidence.  We  will  accept  of  no  tes- 
timony, but  Divine  revelation,  and  the  most  popular 
pedobaptists.  If  these  show  the  Baptists  to  be  right, 
and  exclusively  right,  I  shall  rest  satisfied.  Should 
we  appear  with  self-interested  testimony,  we  must  fail 
at  every  impartial  tribunal ;  but  if  we  present  ample  evi- 
dence from  the  Scriptures,  and  from  the  adverse  body, 
we  must  secure  our  claims,  or  impeach  the  judge.  No 
man  is  compelled  to  bear  testimony  against  himself; 
but  when  imen,  free  from  duress,  make  concessions  in 
favor  of  truth,  we  can  not  pass  it  in  silence,  and  do 
justice  to  the  cause  we  sustain. 

Replying  to  any  individual  pedobaptist,  is  a  mat- 
ter of  secondary  importance  ;  for  when  w^e  have  done 
v/ith  one,  a  second  appears,  with  not  only  a  new, 
but  an  opposite  theory.  This  is  evident  from  the 
two  last  productions  of  this  city ;  and  if  the  one 
that  follows  this  is  not  different  from  both  the  pre- 
ceding, I  shall  think  the  laws  of  motion  in  the  pedo- 
baptist  world  are  reversed.  When  the  Savior  was  on 
earth,  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  took  two  methods  to 
put  down  his  doctrine  :  1st,  they  charged  him  with 
teachmg  and  practicing  contrary  to  the  law  of  God  ; 
:M,  being  stung  with  his  truth,  which  they  could  not 
answer,  they  resorted  to  ridicule.  Had  they  convict- 
ed him  of  the  first,  his  cause  would  have  suffered  ;  but 
their  practice  of  the  second  did  but  injure  their  own. 
The  Ignorance  of  that  age  was  an  apology  for  them  : 
but  the  light  of  M/5,  demands  sound  argument. 

Much  has  been  said  about  brotherly  love,  charity, 
and  Christian  union.  The  substance  of  these  is  a 
heaven-born  treasure  ;  but  their  shadow  is  a  mere  il- 
lusion. Sho!ild  Christians  and  ministers  act  kindly 
toward  each  other,  by  frequently  exchanging  pulpits, 
and  entering  into  a  work  of  revival  in  a  neighboring 
1* 


sanctuary  as  they  would  in  their  own,  irrespective  of 
denominational  differences, — having  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  salvation  of  souls  for  their  motive;  their 
^practice  would  go  further  to  promote  Christian  union, 
and  remove  stumbimg-blocks  from  the  path  of  the  un- 
converted, than  many  pompous  sermons  on  Christian 
charity,  without  such  example. 

I.  ROBORDS. 
Neio  Haven.  August,  X838.- 


Ay 


THE 

CONVERT'S  GUIDE 


CHAPTER    I. 

SECTION   I. 


A  Brief  Review  of  "A  Critical  Dissertatioit 
on  the  Scriptural  Mode  of  Baptism,  proving  the 
Exclusive  Divine  Authority  of  Affusion  and 
Sprinkling.     By  Leicester  A.  Sawyer." 

I  wish  it  distinctly  understood,  that  I  undertake 
this  review  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Sawyer. 

Mr.  Sawyer  says,  p.  1,  "  There  is  a  scriptural  mode 
of  baptism,  which  is  capable  of  being  fuJly  ascertain- 
ed and  triumphantly  established.  It  can  not  for  a 
moment  be  supposed  that  this  matter  is  left  in  impene- 
trable darkness.  Such  a  supposition  is  inconsistent 
with  the  perfection  of  the  word  of  God  as  a  rule  of 
action,  and  annihilates  the  institution  of  baptism 
itself,  in  as  much  as  we  can  not  be  bound  to  do  what 
we  can  not  learn  how  to  do." 

This  statement  is  truth  in  its  native  simplicity  ;  and 
the  God  of  truth  on  earth  and  at  the  last  judgment 
will  show  it  to  be  such. 

1.  The  testimony  of  the  Lord. 

"The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the 
soul ;  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise 
the  simple." — Psalm  xix.  7. 

2.  The  testimony  of  the  apostles. 

"  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and 


is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction, 
for  instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God 
may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works."— 2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17. 

3.   The  testimony  of  pedobaptists. 

"  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  whom  all  controversies 
of  religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of 
Councils,  opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men, 
and  private  spirits,  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose 
sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the  Holy 
Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scriptures.  Matt.  xxii.  29 — 31." 
— Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  1,  ^ec.  10. 

"  We  ought  not  to  worship  God  with  any  other  ex- 
ternal worship  than  what  himself  has  commanded 
and  appointed  us  in  his  holy  word.  The  Scripture 
has  set  us  our  bounds  for  worship,  to  which  we  must 
not  add,  and  from  which  we  ought  not  to  diminish  ; 
for  whosoever  does  either  the  one  or  the  other,  must 
needs  accuse  the  rule  either  in  defect  of  things  neces- 
sary, or  of  superfluity  in  things  unnecessary,  which  is 
an  high  affront  to  the  wisdom  of  God,  who,  as  he  is 
the  object  of  all  worship,  so  he  is  the  prescriber  of  all 
that  worship  which  he  will  accept  and  reward." — 
Bishop  Hopkins^   Works,  p.  107. 

But  notwithstanding  this,  some  men  positively  deny 
what  Mr.  Sawyer  says  above:  yes,  Mr.  S.  himself 
palpably  contradicts  it  before  he  gets  through  ;  for  on 
p.  19  he  says,  "  As  no  specific  directions  are  given  in 
the  New  Testament  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism 
the  early  Christians,  like  many  in  modern  times,  may 
have  thought  themselv^es  at  liberty  to  baptize  in  what 
mode  they  pleased."  Again,  he  says  in  his  second 
pamphlet,  p.  20,  "  The  mere  mode  of  administering 
established  rites,  where  the  directions  respecting  the 
MODE  are  not  supposed  to  be  specific." 

Such  gross  mistakes  are  not  the  fruit  of  ignorance, 
for  Mr.  S.  is  a  man  of  erudition;  but  it  is  the  legiti- 


9 

mate  result  of  attempting  to  run  between  the  com- 
mands of  God  and  human  mstitutions.  He  sometimes 
falls  in  with  one,  and  then  with  the  other.  Now  God 
either  has  made  a  revelation  of  his  will  to  ns,  or  he 
has  not :  if  he  has  not,  then  we  are  wholly  without  a 
:^uide  ;  if  he  has,  then  the  Bible  is  his  will  and  our 
guide.  If  the  Bible  is  his  will  respecting  our  duty, 
then  it  is  complete,  or  it  is  not :  if  it  is  complete,  then 
our  duty  is  clearly  expressed.  If  it  is  not  complete, 
then  it  is  so  because  God  v\^ould  not,  or  could  not, 
maks  it  complete  :  but  to  say  that  he  could  not,  limits 
omnipotence  ;  and  to  say  he  would  not,  impeaches  his 
goodness.  The  conclusion  is  evident,  the  Bible  is  a 
ful:.  and  complete  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 


SECTION    II. 

The  next  position  of  Mr.  Sawyer's  which  I  shall 
notice,  is  that  in  order  to  establish  his  doctrine,  he  de- 
nies the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  ;  charges 
the  Greeks,  as  a  nation  and  a  church,  with  not  under- 
standing their  own  language ;  the  apostles  and  primi- 
tive church  with  ignorance  and  error;  and  the  trans- 
lators of  our  English  version  with  error  and  want  of 
ability  to  accomplish  m  their  whole  effort  even  as 
much  as  he  has  done  m  his  little  book  of  24  pages. 

1.  Ke  denies  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. On  p.  2  he  says,  "  The  English  verb  baptize 
corresponds  to  the  Greek  ^anTi'coj,  from  which  it  is  de- 
rived. The  noun  baptism  corresponds  to  the  Greek 
^artzca^uoc  and  ^annafiog,  both  of  which  are  applied  to 
denote  the  rite  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament.-- — 
The  language  of  the  Septuagint  is  Hebraistic,  not  strict- 
ly classic  ;  that  is,  it  differs  from  the  language  used  by 
native  Greek  writers,  by  being,  in  many  instances  and 
particulars,  conformed  to  the  Hebrew,  of  which  it  is  a 


10 

translation,  and  by  being  used  to  express  ideas  and  de- 
note objects  unknown  to  Grecian  literature."  On  p.  3 
he  says.  "i^aTrn^w,  as  used  by  the  classic  Greek  writers, 
siafniHes  to  dip,  to  immerse  in  a  liquid."  On  p.  8  he 
says,  "In  adopting  the  Greek  language,  and  applying 
It  to  describe  their  own  peculiar  institutions,  it  was  not 
possible  for  the  Jews  to  use  all  the  words  of  that  lan- 
guage III  senses  previously  established  by  Grecian 
usage." 

Thus  Mr.  S.  argues  through  his  whole  book,  to 
prove  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  either 
from  choice,  or  ignorantly,  or  for  want  of  language, 
did  adopt  and  use  a  classic  Greek  word,  the  meaning 
of  which  is  universally  known  to  be  dip,  while  they 
by  using  this  word  intended  to  teach  the  whole  church 
of  God  to  sprinkle.  Now  Mr.  S.  has  proved  his  point, 
or  he  has  not.  If  he  has  not  proved  that  Christ  and 
the  apostles  were  all  mistaken  in  the  use  of  the  word 
SciTtiCoj,  then  his  whole  scheme  is  gone  at  a  dash  ;  for 
he  concedes  that  the  legitimate  meaning  of  that  word 
i^  dip.  But  if  he  has  established  the  point  that  the 
waiters  of  the  New  Testament  fell  into  the  same  error 
with  v\^hich  he  charges  the  translators  of  the  Septua- 
a^mt,  then  it  is  obvious  that  he  denies  the  inspiration 
of  their  writings.  Mr.  S.  would  make  us  believe,  that 
he  IS  only  arguing  the  difference  between  classic  an4 
Hebraistic  Greek,  while  he  evidently  aims  to  fix  on  thd 
mind  of  the  reader,  that  the  language  of  the  Scrip- 
tures was  not  inspired.  What  if  the  translators  of  the 
Septuagint  before  Christ's  incarnation  mistook  1  and 
what  if  the  translators  of  the  English  version  were 
mistaken  '?  If  Christ  and  his  apostles  'are  correct  in 
their  use  of  the  word  ^a^TTtioi  and  its  coo:nates,  this  is 
all  we  wish  to  know.  The  distinction  between  classic 
and  Hebraistic  Greek  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  argu- 
ment. The  question  that  Mr.  S.  has  introduced  is 
concerning  plenary  inspiration  :  that  is,  were  the  words 


11 

as  well  as  the  sentiments  of  the  Bible  dictated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  ?  or  were  the  apostles  and  the  whole  prim- 
itive church  left  to  use  a  classic  Greek  word,  calculat- 
ed to  mislead  themselves,  and  the  churches  in  succeed- 
ing ages  ?     On  this  important  point  we  n^d  li^ht;,- 

1.  The  testimony  of  our  Lord,  ^^' 
'•'And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord.'" — 

Exodus  xxiv.  4.  "  I  have  also  spoken  by  the  pro- 
phets."— Hose  a  xii.  10.  "For  he  whom  God  hath 
sent  speaketh  the  words  of  God." — Joh?i  iii.  34.  See 
also  Deut.  xxxi.  13 :   Prov.  i.  23,  &c.  dec. 

2.  The  testimony  of  the  apostles.  '"; 
"  For  I  testify  to  every  one  that  heareth  the  words 

of  the  prophecy  of  this  book;- and  if  any  man  shall 

take  away  from  the  loords  of  the  book  of  this  prophe- 
cy."— Rev.  xxii.  18,  19.  "  Which  things  also  we  speak, 
not  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth.  but 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth."—!  Cor.  ii.  13.  "  Take 
ye  no  thought  how  or  what  thing  ye  shall  answer,  or 
what  ye  shall  say  ;  for  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  teach  you 
in  the  same  hour  what  ye  ought  to  say." — Luke  xii.  11. 
12.  See  also  Acts  v.  20  :  John  xvii.  14 :  Rev.  i.  3  : 
xxii.  18 :  xxi.  5  :  Heb.  iv.  12. 

3.  The  testimony  of  pedobaptists. 

"  And  this  is  the  most  literal,  and  no  doubt  the  most 
correct,  rendering  of  nolla  vdara,  the  Greek  words 
whicH  were  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost." — Evangel. 
Mag.,  Hartford,  Ct.,  June,  1836. 

"  In  the  text  we  are  presented,  among  other  things, 
with  a  commission  given  to  the  apostles  and  others, 
Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  ev- 
ery creature  ;  he  that  believeth  and  BaTiTiadsig,  (is  bap- 
tized,) (fee.  Their  preaching  therefore  was  a  business 
of  mere  delegation  ;  or  in  other  words,  Christ  preach- 
ed the  gospel  by  their  instrumentality. Can  he  who 

came  to  publish  the  will  of  God  to  mankind  concern- 
ing this  immensely  important  subject  have  left  it  to  be 


12 

chiefly  published  under  his  authority,  by  the  mere 
force  of  human  memory,  and  mixed  with  human  frail- 
ty and  human  opinions,  and  thus  necessarily  have  be- 
come a  mass  of  truth  and  falsehood,  so  blended  that 
those  who  read  their  writings  could  never  be  able  to 
separate  the  falsehood  from  the  truth  ?  Does  any  hu- 
man legislature  suffer  its  own  laws  to  be  published  in 
such  a  manner  7  Was  Christ  possessed  of  less  wis- 
dom, or  less  integrity,  or  less  benevolence,  than  hu- 
man legislators  ? -The  same  truth  is  evident,  from 

the  promise  given  to  the  apostles  by  our  Savior  in  his 

last  discourse,  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

That  he  (the  Holy  Ghost)  should  bring  up  to  the  full 
view  of  the  memory  the  things  which  Christ  had  taught 
them.  It  will  be  evident  to  the  slightest  attention,  that 
the  things  here  promised  contain  whatever  is  involved 
in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  apostles.  If  it  was  ful- 
filled, then  the  apostles  wTote  and  preached  the  gospel 
under  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  because 
the  promise  assures  them  of  such  inspiration,  in  the  am- 
plest terms  conceivable.  If  it  was  not  fulfilled,  then 
Christ  was  a  false  prophet. The  apostles  testify  di- 
rectly, that  the  gospel  which  they  preached  was  reveal- 
ed to  them  from  God,  'which  things  also  we  speak  net 
in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth,  comparing  spiritual  things 
with  spiritual ;'  or  as  the  last  phrase  is  rendered  by 
Dr.  Macknight,  explaining  spiritual  things  in  spiritual 
words.'' — Dicighfs  Theology^  Sermon  48. 

"  But  God  has  given  us  his  word  to  this  very  end, 
that  it  may  be  our  rule  ;  and  therefore  he  has  so  or- 
dered it  that  it  may  be  understood  by  us  ;  and  strict- 
ly speaking  this  is  our  only  rule.  If  we  join  any 
thing  to  it,  as  making  it  our  rule,  we  do  that  which 
we  have  no  warrant  for ;  yea,  that  which  God  has 
forbidden.  Deut.  iv.  2  :  Prov.  xxx.  6.'' — PresU  Ed- 
wardsj  vol.  4,  p.  482. 


13 

Should  Mr.  Sawyer  read  Pres't  Edwards'  works, 
vol.  1,  from  p.  128  to  341,  I  think  it  would  relieve 
him  from  his  present  embarrassment. 
I  close  this  head,  by  quoting  Mr.  Dick  : 
••  It  is  manifest,  with  respect  to  many  passages  of 
Scripture,  that  the  subjects  of  which  they  treat  must 
have  been  directly  revealed  to  the  writers.     They 
could  not  have  been  known  by  any  natural  means, 
nor  was  the  knowledge  of  them  attainable  by  a  simple 
elevation  of  the  faculties.     With  the  faculties  of  an 
angel  we  could  not  discover  the  purposes  of  the  Divine 
mind.     In  fact,  by  denying  that  they  v/ere  constantly 
under  infallible  guidance,  it  leaves  us  utterly  at  a  loss 
to  know  when  we  should  or  should  not  believe  them. 
If  they  could  blend  their  own  stories  with  the  revela- 
tions made  to  them,  how  can  I  be  certain  that  they 
have  not,  on  some  occasions,  published,  in  the  name 
of  God,  sentiments  of  their  own,  to  which  they  were 
desirous  to  gain  credit  and  authority  ?     Who  will  as- 
sure me  of  their  perfect  fidelity  in  drawing  a  line  of 
distinction  between  the  divine  and  the  human  parts  of 
their  writings  ?     The  denial  of  the  plenary  inspiration 
of  the  Scripture  tends  to  unsetttle  the  foundations  of 
our  faith,  involv^es  us  in  doubt  and  perplexity,  and 
leaves  us  no  other  method  of  ascertaining  how  much 
we  should  believe,  but  by  an  appeal  to  reason.     But 
when  reason  is  invested  with  the  authority  of  a  judge, 
not  only  is  revelation  dishonored,   and  its  author  in- 
sulted, but  the  end  for  which  it  was  given  is  complete- 
ly defeated.     No  man  could  write  an  intelligible  dis- 
course on  a  subject  which  he  does  not  understand, 
unless  he  were  furnished  with  the  words  as  well  a5 
the  sentiments ;  and  that  the  penmen  of  the  Scrip- 
tures did  not  always  understand  what  they  wrote,  is 
intimated  by  Peter,  when  he  says,  that  the  prophet? 
^  inquired  and  searched  diligently  what,  and  what  man- 
mer  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did 
2 


14 

signify,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should  follow.'  1  Pet.  i.  10, 
11.  And  in  another  place,  having  observed  that  'eye 
had  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  had  entered  into 
the  heart  of  man  the  things  which  God  had  prepared  for 
them  that  love  him,'  he  adds,  '  But  God  hath  revealed 
them  unto  us  by  his  Spirit.'  See  Rev.  i.  1 :  Gal.  i.  12  : 
Eph.  ii.  5  :  1  Cor.  ii.  9)  10.  Paul  affirms  that  he  and 
the  other  apostles  spoke  'not  in  the  words  which 
man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
taught,'  1  Cor.  ii.  13  ;  and  this  general  assertion  may 
be  applied  to  their  writings  as  well  as  to  their  sermons. 
Besides,  every  person  who  hath  reflected  upon  the 
subject,  is  aware  of  the  importance  of  a  proper  selec- 
tion of  words  in  expressing  our  sentiments  ;  and  knows 
how  easy  it  is  for  a  heedless  or  unskillful  person  not 
only  to  injure  the  beauty  and  weaken  the  efficacy  of 
a  discourse  by  the  impropriety  of  his  language,  but 
by  substituting  one  word  for  another,  to  which  it 
seems  to  be  equivalent,  to  alter  the  meaning,  and  per- 
haps render  it  totally  different.  If,  then,  the  sacred 
writers  had  not  been  directed  in  the  choice  of  ivords, 
how  could  we  have  been  assured  that  those  v/hich 
they  have  chosen  were  the  most  proper  ?  Is  it  not  pos- 
sible, nay,  is  it  not  certain,  that  they  would  have  some- 
times expressed  themselves  inaccurately,  as  many  of 
them  were  illiterate;  and  by  consequence  would  have 
obscured  and  misrepresented  the  truth?  In  this  case, 
how  could  our  faith  have  securely  rested  on  their  tes- 
timony? Would  not  the  suspicion  of  error  in  their 
writings  have  rendered  it  necessary,  before  we  receiv- 
ed them,  to  try  them  by  the  standard  of  reason  ?  and 
would  not  the  authority  and  the  design  of  revelation 
have  thus  been  overthrown?  We  must  conclude, 
therefore,  that  the  words  of  Scripture  are  from  God, 
as  well  as  the  matter;  or  we  shall  charge  him  with  a 
want  of  wisdom  in  transmitting  his  truths  through  & 


15 

ciiaiinei  by  which  they  mi^ht  have  been,  and  most  pro- 
bably have  been,  polluted.'' 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  not  only  the  inspired 
writers  who  stand  charged  with  the  use  of  misguiding 
classic  Greek  words  ;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  also.  How- 
ever, the  holy  apostles  and  primitive  church  having 
been  led  astray  by  the  use  of  this  word,  it  is  reasona- 
ble to  suppose  that  they  should  wish  to  retract;  and 
iti  view  of  the  entire  absence  of  any  thing  of  the  kind, 
we  will  SUPPOSE  a  confession  : 

^IXtXttiS  it  has  recently  come  to  our  knowledge, 
that  a  little  handful  of  people,  caUing  themselves  Bap- 
tists, who,  under  a  pretense  of  keeping  our  Savior's 
law,  following  our  example,  and  keeping  the  ordinan- 
ces as  we  delivered  them  to  the  primitive  churches, 
do  constantly  affirm  that  the  word  ^ami'Cfa  does  mean 
to  immerse,  and  that  our  practice  did  conform  to  this 
use  of  the  word, — therefore  urging  that  sprinkling  is 
not  baptism ;  and  whereas  these  Baptists  have  been 
supposed  to  cause  much  trouble  and  dispute  on  earth, 
and  probably  will  cause  still  more,  unless  there  is  a 
new  revelation  on  this  point :— Noto  UttOt)  th^ttfdre, 
that  we,  the  sacred  penmen,  do  freely  confess^  that  we 
have  been  the  sole  cause  of  all  this  trouble.  It  was 
not  designed  by  us,  but  was  purely  a  mistake.  At 
tlie  time  we  wrote  the  Scriptures,  we  were  ignorant 
Jews,  and  did  not  understand  the  Greek  of  the  age ; 
besides  this,  we  had  before  us  the  Septuagint,  a  Greek 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  text,  which  used  the  word 
^a.TTt^cj  with  reference  to  the  Jewish  washings  ;  and 
we  being  familiar  with  that,  and  yet  wholly  ignorant 
of  the  true  use  of  the  Greek  language,  and  being  left 
to  our  own  judgment  as  to  the  choice  of  words  in  com- 
municating what  the  Holy  Spirit  taught  us,  we  did 
iiill  into  the  mistake  of  using  the  word  ^uTn^lia  (im- 
merse) instead  of  the  word  Pavni^b)  (sprinkle,)  and  even 
went  so  far  as  to  submit  to  immersion  ourselves,  (which 


16 

fully  proves  our  honesty  in  this  matter.)  The  primi- 
tive churchj  following  our  example,  were  immersed 
also ;  and  the  Greeks,  who  were  a  very  ignorant  and 
stupid  race,  understanding  only  the  classic  use  of  their 
own  language,  fell  into  this  error,  and  finally  the  whole 
church  for  about  1300  years.  But  in  as  much  as 
sprinkling  has  made  its  appearance,  and  disturbed  the 
churches  in  the  western  part  of  your  world  for  about 
three  or  four  hundred  years,  [see  Mr.  S.,  first  page.] 
and  as  the  world  is  getting  wiser  and  still  wiser,  and 

especially  as  a  certain  Rev.  Mr. has  recently 

outstripped  all  others,  going  beyond  Lexicons^  Trans- 
lators^ Councils,  and  the  judgment  of  the  whole  church 
for  century  upon  century  past,  and  a  large  majority 
of  the  church  at  the  present  day,  diving  into  the  very 
bowels  of  the  divinely  inspired  original,  [see  p.  21  of 
Mr.  S.]  and  found  out  and  triumphantly  established 
the  truth ;  [see  his  first  page ;]  therefore  we  stand 
fully  convicted  J  and  do  herewith  send  orders,  that  the 
word  B<x7tT(,tib>  (immerse)  be  removed  from  the  New 
Testament,  and  the  word  PavxilM  (sprinkle)  take  its 
place.  This,  with  five  other  alterations  suggested 
by  Mr.  S.,  [pamphlet,  p.  18,]  will  correct  the  whole, 
and  henceforward  prove  that  immersion  is  a  mere 
nullity.  [Signed,  «fcc.] 

2.  On  p.  19,  Mr.  S.  sets  aside  the  judgment  of  the 
first  Christian  churches  after  this  manner  :  "  Most  of 
the  early  Christians  were  unacquainted  with  the  He- 
braistic Greek  dialect,  being  familiar  with  the  usage 
of  the  classic  ;  and  being  in  a  great  measure  ignorant 
of  that  which  prevailed  among  the  Jews,  the  great 
mass  of  the  ancient  Christians  would  easily  have  fallen 
into  error  on  this  subject,  and  have  understood  the 
Scriptures  as  teaching  immersion,  where  they  really 
taught  sprinkling ;  besides,  most  of  them  were  illite- 
rate," &c.  Poor  church  !  you  are  set  aside,  en  masse. 
S.  On  p.  21,  Mr.  S.  overthrows  the  judgment  of  the 


iy.'"'^:Th( 


whole  Greek  cburchj  without  ceremony.  ^ The  same 
remarks  apply  to  the  hnmersions  of  the  Greek  church. 
The  native  (creeks,  and  others  who  derive  their  knovv- 
jedge  of  the  Greek  language  from  the  classics  and 
from  native  Greek  usage,  have  in  every  age  been  liable 
to  err  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Greek  Scriptures." 
Poor  Greeks  ! 

4.  On  p.  21,  he  says,  "Some  are  unwilling  to  look 
beyond  the  common  English  version  of  the  Scriptures, 
for  information  on  religious  subjects,  which,  however 
faithful  and  correct  in  the  main,  is  confessedly  imper- 
fect  ajid  inadequate  in  many  particulars.  It  is  espe- 
cially so  in  relation  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  as  has 
Ijeen  demonstrated  in  the  foregoing  pages."  Fooe. 
TRANSLATORS  !  what  a  pity  they  had  not  the  light  of 
Mr.  Sawyer's  pamphlet  to  guide  them. 

But  why  does  Mr.  S.  condemn  Lexicons,  the  Septu- 
a^rint,  the  judgment  and  practice  of  the  apostles,  and 
of  the  whole  Greek  church  and  nation,  eil  the  primi- 
tive Cliristians,  and  all  the  translators?  The  true  an- 
swer is,  because  he  finds  them  all  Opposed  to  his  views. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  the  Greek  language  is 
tii3  most  copious  and  eloqceiK  in  t\m  world  ;  and  it 
was  the  special  design  of  God  that  this  should  be  the 
language  by  which  the  sacred  oracles  should  be  pub- 
lished. 

^' Homer  watered  the  tongue,  and  in  succeeding  ages 
il  flourished  till  it  grew  ripe  in  the  New  Testament. 
As  Athens  in  old  times  was  called  the  Grecia  of  Gre- 
cia,  so  the  New  Testament  may  be  styled  the  Greek 
of  Greek.''—/.  Lighlfoot,  D.  I),  vol.  1,^.  101.5. 

"As  to  that  doubtfulness  that  some  have  taken  up 
abouf  the  original  tongue  of  this  epistle,  (i.  e.  to  the 
Hebrews,)  as  thinking  it  strange  that  he  (Paul)  should 
write  in  the  Greek  tongue  to  the  Hebrews,  especially 
to  the  Hebrews  of  Judea,  w^e  need  no  better  satisfaction 
than  whi^t  the  Hebre^ys  themselves,  yea,  the  Hebrews 

r 


18 

of  Jndea  give  as ;  I  mean  the  Jerusalem  GemaristSy 
from  several  passages  that  they  have  about  the  Greek 
language.  In  Megillah,  fol.  71,  col.  2,  they  say  thus  : 
'  There  is  a  tradition  from  Ben  Kaphra,  God  shall  en- 
large Japhet,  and  shall  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Sem.' 
The  Babylonian  Geniara,  on  the  same  treatise,  fol.  9, 
col.  2,  resolves  us  what  tongue  of  Japhet  is  meant; 
for  having  all  along  before  spoken  of  the  excellency 
and  dignity  of  the  Greek  tongue,  Rabbi  Jonathan  of 
Beth  Gubrin  saith  there  are  four  languages  brave  for 
the  world  to  use,  viz :  the  Vulgar,  the  Roman,  the 
^Syrian,  and  the  Hebrew.  Now  the  question  is,  what 
tongue  he  means  by  the  Vulgar.  Heason  will  name 
the  Greek  ;  and  Midras  Tillin  makes  it  plain,  for  fol, 
'^5,  col.  4j  speaking  of  this  very  passage,  he  nameth 
the  Greek.  Observe  then,  that  the  Hebrews  call  the 
Greek  the.  Vulgar  tongue.  They  proceed,  fol.  25,  coL  3: 
It  is  a  tradition,  Simeon  Ben  Gamaliel  saith,  in  books 
they  permitted  not  that  they  should  write  but  only  in 
the  Greek  ;  they  searched  and  found  that  the  law  he 
interpreted  completely  but  only  in  the  Greek.  And 
the  same  Talmud,  in  Sotah,  fol.  21,  col.  2,  hath  this 
record :  Rabbi  Levi  went  to  Cesarea,  and  heard  them 
rehearsing  their  phykicterias  in  the  Greek  language  ; 
a  passage  very  well  worth  observing;  for  in  Cesa- 
rea were  as  learned  schools  as  any  in  the  nation,  and 
if  the  phylacteries,  (picked  sentences  out  of  the  law,) 
which  might  above  all  things  have  challenged  their 
rehearsal  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  as  their  own  writers 
show,  yet  they  say  them  over  in  Greek, — Paul  might 
very  well  write  to  the  Hebrews  in  Judea  in  the  Greek 
tongue,  when  that  tongue  was  in  so  common  use  even 
in  the  university  of  Judea  itself  We  should  consider 
how  that  tongue  (i.  e.  the  Hebrew)  was  now  a  stranger 
to  all  but  scholars,  (yes,  as  much  as  it  is  to  us  at  this 
day,)  and  how  God  in  his  providence  had  dispersed 
and  planted  the  Greek  tongue  throughout  all  the  world, 


19 

by  the  conquest  of  Alexander,  (331  years  before  Christ,) 
and  had  brought  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek." — ib, 
vol.  1,  p.  340. 

Thus  we  find  that  although  the  Savior,  the  apos- 
ties,  and  the  members  of  the  first  church,  were  Jews 
in  blood,  yet  they,  and  all  their  fathers  for  more  than 
three  hundred  years,  were  Greeks  by  education  ;  that 
by  law  they  were  obliged  to  write  and  teach  in  the 
Greek  language  only  ;  and  their  learned  Rabbi,  Simeon 
Ben  Gamaliel,  (who  lived  at  the  time,  and  must  have 
known  as  much  about  it  as  Mr.  S.  does,)  searched  and 
found  that  the  law  was  interpreted  completely  but 
onl^  in  the  Greek.  See  with  how  good  a  face  Mr.  S, 
condemns  the  Septuagint. 

Thus  generation  after  generation  had  passed  by 
since  the  Hebrew  language  was  dead,  and  the  Greek 
in  use,  in  school  and  out  of  school,  in  the  public  ser- 
vices of  the  synagogues,  and  in  all  the  business  of  life, 
wherever  they  had  need  of  language  ;  and  yet  Mr.  S. 
attempts  to  show  this  enlightened  community  that 
they  were  all  so  Hebraistic  that  they  did  not  under- 
stand the  Greek  language  then,  as  well  as  he  does  at 
the  present  time, — and  ventures  to  raise  his  whole  su- 
perstructure of  sprinkling  on  this  one  point.  Well 
might  the  apostle  say,  "  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil 
you  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tra- 
dition of  men.  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and 
not  after  Christ ;"  Colos.  ii.  8  ;  when  he  was  about  to 
teach  the  truth  concerning  baptism  as  at  ver.  12  :  "Bu- 
ried with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risea 
with  him.'' 


SECTION   III 


In  this  section  I  shall  briefly  review  Mr.  Sawyer^i 
second  pamphlet,  named  *'  A  Critical  Dissertation  on 


20 

the  Ecclesiastical  Relations  and  Privileges  of  Children, 
clearly  establishing  their  Scriptural  Title  to  Baptism." 
Leaving  all  classical  and  other  minute  criticisms  to  be 
considered  under  their  respective  heads. 

I.  The  singular  view  that  he  takes  of  John's  mis- 
sion and  work.  Page  1 :  "  John  exercised  the  author- 
ity of  a  prophet  duly  authorized  to  modify  and  change 
the  religious  institutions  of  his  time;"  pp.  1.  2,  '-of 
initiating  persons  into  a  religious  society,  of  which  he 
was  the  founder,  and  which  professed  to  receive  his 
doctrines  and  submit  to  his  discipline,  as  of  Divine 
authority.  Those  who  embraced  the  doctrines,  and 
submitted  to  the  discipline  of  John,  were  entitled  to 
his  baptism,  as  a  seal  oi  their  faith  in  himP 

Upon  these  assertions  of  Mr.  S.  I  would  remnrk. 
that  none  appears  more  glaringly  anti-scriptural,  than 
that  John  required  the  people  to  believe  in  himself. 
and  baptized  them  on  a  profession  of  such  faith.  It 
is  obvious  to  every  Sabbath  School  scholar,  that  John 
required  the  people  to  believe  in  Jesus  Clirist.  and  be 
baptized  on  this  condition.  ]\Iark  i.  1 — S:  Jolin's 
preaching  and  baptizing  is  called  "  the  beginning  of 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  See  also  Matt.  iii.  10 — 12: 
Luke  iii.  15—20:  John  i.  19—28,35—42:  Acts  xix. 
1 — 7.  These  passages  do  not  favor  Mr.  S's  new  doc- 
trine, but  all  to  the  reverse.  But  lest  he  should  not 
rest  satisfied,  I  will  quote  a  iew  pedobaptists. 

John  i.  22—25.  '*  The  right  and  power  of  baptiz- 
ing Jews,  and  of  collecting  them  by  baptism  into  a 
new  religion^  was  confined  to  the  Messiah  and  his 
precursor  in  establishing  his  terrestrial  monarchy. "'■ — 
Lightfoot^  RosenmueUer^  and  Kuinoel,  in  co7npre- 
hensive  comment  on  the  place. 

"  Such  as  professed  repentance  and  made  confession 
of  their  sins,  he  (John)  baptized  with  water,  charging 
them  to  believe  on  the  Messiah^  who  was  to  be  imme- 
diately revealed." — Brown^s  Bible  Dictionary,  under 
John. 


21 

'•The  beginning  of  the  gospel  history  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  as  it  is  recorded 
by  the  evangelist  Mark,  thus  takes  its  rise  from  tlje 
opening  of  John's  ministry.  It  was  this  John  that 
came  under  the  character  of  the  great  forerunner  of 
the  Messiah,  as  it  is  written  in  the  prophets,  and  par- 
ticularly in  Mai.  iii.  1 :  '  Behold  I  send  my  messenger 
before  thy  face,  O  my  anointed  son,  who  shall  prepare 
thy  way  before  thee,  and  as  a  harbinger  appointed  to 
proclaim  thy  coming.'  shall  with  remarkable  solemnity 
make  it  the  business  of  his  ministry  to  introduce  thy 
kingdom.'''  See  also,  Isa.  xL  3.— — "And  while  he 
(John)  was  thus  urging  his  exhortation,  and  saying 
'  repent  ye,'  he  pleaded  with  them  a  very  new  and  im- 
portant argument ;  for,  said  he,  the  long  expected 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  now  approaching,  and  God  is 
about  to  appear  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  to  erect 
that  kingdom  spoken  of  by  Daniel,  ii.  44,  and  viii.  13, 
14,  as  the  kingdom  of  the  God  of  heaven,   which  he 

would  set  up  and  give  to   the  Son  of  man. Dr. 

Sykes,  in  his  essay  on  the  truth  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, chap.  3,  has  largely  proved  that  this  phrase  re- 
fers to  those  texts  in  Daniel,  quoted  in  the  paraphrase. 
It  properly  signifies  the  gospel  dispensation,  in  which 
subjects  were  to  be  gathered  to  God  by  his  Son,  and  a 
society  formed  which  was  to  subsist,  first  in  more  im- 
perfect circumstances  on  earth,  but  afterwards  to  ap- 
pear complete  in  the  world  of  glory." — Doddridge's 
Expositoi^^  Sec.  15. 

'•  John  indeed  administered  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance, and  came  to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,  telling 
the  people  that  they  should  believe  in  him  that  was  to 
come  after  him,  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  whose  servant 
he  (John)  professed  himself  to  be,  and  so  much  inferi- 
or to  him  as  not  to  be  worthy  to  loose  or  bear  his 
shoes." — Doddridge  on  Acts  xix.  1 — 7. 

'•  John  the  Baptist  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost 


22 

from  his  birth  ;  he  was  great  in  the  sight  of  God.  and 
one  of  the  most  excellent  of  men  ;  yet  he  was  nothing 
hut  the  voice  of  a  herald  to  proclaim  the  Savior's  glo- 
ry, unworthy  even  to  loose  the  latchet  of  his  shoes. 
He  knew  that  Jesus  was  before  him  as  the  Eternal 
Word  :  that  he  ^vould  for  ever  be  preferred  before  him 
and  all  creatures,  and  that  he  alone  could  pardon  sin 
or  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  thought  he  could 
not  enough  abase  himself  or  exalt  the  Lord;  he  only 
desired  to  prepare  his  way^  and  manifest  him  to  Israel. 
Their  light  is  darkness,  and  their  wisdom  madness, 
who  exalt  themselves  and  degrade  Christ." — Scotfs 
ChmmenL 

From  the  above  it  is  evident  that  John  did  not  com<5 
to  set  up  a  dispenstition  of  his  own,  requiring  people 
to  believe  in  him,  and  receive  his  baptism  as  a  seal  of 
such  faith.  This  statement,  and  that  John  was  duly 
Authorized  to  modify  and  change  the  religious  institu- 
tions of  his  time,  only  prove  that  Mr.  S.  knows  how 
to  make  assertions. 

n.  I  notice  the  result  of  his  argument. 

On  pp.  1,  2, Mr.  S.  says,  "that  the  Mosaic  baptisms, 
which  were  of  daily  occurrence,  especially  so  in  the 
z».^e  of  Pharisaical  strictness  and  formality  which 
characterized  the  cotemporaries  of  Christ,  was  the 
&aine  baptism  which  John  adopted  and  used  for  the 
purpose  of  initiating  persons  into  the  religious  society 
of  which  he  was  the  founder,  and  as  a  seal  of  their 
faith  in  him,-'  (John.)  Nov/  I  ask  was  .Tesus  Christ 
baptized  merely  with  John's  Mosaic  pharisaical  Xvash- 
ing,  on  condition  of  his  faith  in  John^  to  make  him 
a  member  of  John's  society  7  Let  men  of  sense 
judge. 

Again,  Mr.  S.  assures  us  on  p.  2,  "  that  the  first  no- 
tice we  have  of  Christian  baptism  is  at  John  iii.  22,"' 
long  after  Christ  had  been  baptized  of  John ;  and  on 
p.   3   he  says    "  that  all  who  believed  in  Christ  were 


23 

baptized  with  his  baptism  and  thus  initiated  into  his 
society  of  professed  followers, — and  that  nothing  can 
be  more  certain  than  that  this  was  required  of  them 
all,  as  an  initiating  act."  In  view  of  the  above,  Jesus 
Christ  never  was  a  member  of  his  own  church,  oth- 
erwise he  was  an  anabaptist,  (i.  e.  twice  baptized.) 
Such,  O  such,  are  the  reasonings  of  men  who  will 
not  anoint  their  eyes  with  eye  salve  that  they  may 
see.  Rev.  iii.  18. 

III.  I  close  by  noticing  Mr.  S's  singular  method  of 
sustaining  his  thesis. 

1.  He  supposes  that  the  old  Jewish  body  politic 
and  the  church  of  Christ  are  one  and  the  same  thing. 
viuder  different  dispensations. 

2.  He  takes  it  for  granted  that  the  Mosaic  wash- 
ings and  Christian  baptism  are  the  same  thing,  only 
used  for  different  purposes. 

3.  He  admits  on  pp.  2,  3,  4,  9,  that  there  is  neither 
precept  or  example  in  the  New  Testament  for  infant 
sprinkling. 

4.  He  supposes  that  infants  are  to  be  members  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  because  they  were,  as  he  supposes, 
of  the  Jewish  body. 

5.  He  therefore'  supposes  strongly^  that  they  are 
to  be  baptized. 

I  was  amused  when  running  over  his  "  Critical  Dis- 
sertation," to  see  how  often  Mr.  S.  employs  this  kind 
of  proof, — suppose^  or  take  it  for  granted^  viz  :  On  p. 
1  twice,  p.  2  three  times,  p.  3  once,  p.  4  once,  p.  5 
twice,  p.  €  once,  p.  7  once,  p.  8  once,  p.  9  twice,  p.  10 
once,  p.  12  once,  p.  14  once,  p.  15  once,  p.  18  once,  p. 
19^  three  times,  p.  21  once,  and  pp.  23  and  24  are 
wholly  suppositions.  While  making  this  examina- 
tion I  was  forcibly  reminded  of  the  remark  of  Presi- 
dent Edwards,  "  The  business  of  an  argument  is  to 
prove,  and  not  to  suppose  or  take  for  granted  the 
very  thing  which  is  to  be  proved."     This  supposins^ 


24 

and  taking  things  for  granted  is  a  mere  rope  of  sand ; 
it  never  can  convince  strong,  well  disciplined  minds  ; 
they  must  have  more  than  this,  or  remain  unmoved. 
Allow  me  such  a  string  of  suppositions,  and  I  can 
prove  the  doctrine  of  trarisubstantiation,  or  any  other 
point  of  faith  and  practice  of  the  Romish  church. 
God  says  to  us  distinctly,  Jeremiah  xxiii.  28,  "  The 
prophet  that  hath  a  dream,  let  him  tell  a  dream,  and 
he  that  hath  my  word,  let  him  speak  my  word  faith- 
fully ;  what  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat,  saith  the  Lord  ?" 
The  following  facts  will  illustrate  the  fallacy  of  rest- 
ing upon  such  arguments : 

In  A.  D.  1813,  Russell  Colvin,  Jesse  Boorn,  and 
Stephen  Boorn,  lived  in  Manchester,  Yt.  Colvin  left, 
and  none  of  his  friends  knew  where  he  was  for  years. 
September,  1819,  the  two  Boorns  were  arrested  for  the 
supposed  murder  of  Colvin.  From  Oct.  27  to  Nov.  1 
they  were  under  trial ;  Judge  Doolittle  presided ; 
attorneys,  L.  Sargeant  and  R.  Skinner  for  the  prison- 
ers, and   C.  Sheldon,  States  Attorney,  for  the  State. 

Evidences.  1.  A  Mr.  Boorn  "dreamed  that  R.  Col- 
rin  came  to  his  bedside  and  told  him  that  he  had  been 
murdered,  and  he  must  follow  him,  and  he  would  take 
him  to  the  spot  where  he  was  buried." 

2.  "A  little  dog  dug  out  of  a  hollow  stump  some 
bones  and  toe  nails,  (partly  burnt)  which  were  pro- 
nounced human." 

3.  Colvin's  ghost  appeared  to  a  man  and  declared 
that  the  Boorns  killed  him,  and  pointed  out  the  spot 
where  he  was  buried ;  the  place  was  an  old  potatoe 
hole,  where  they  found  a  knife,  a  button,  and  near  by 
an  old  hat,  all  which  were  proved  to  be  Colvin's." 

4.  "  Jesse  Boorn  said  that  Stephen  Boorn  had  con- 
fessed to  him  that  he  did  kill  Colvin." 

5.  "  Stephen  wrote  a  full  confession  that  he  did 
kill  Colvin,  and  stated  the  circumstances  at  length,  and 
^ye  it  to  the  sherif." 


25 

6.  '•  A  person  in  the  jail  swore  that  Stephen  made 
fthe  same  confession  to  him." 

7.  "  Silas  Merril  swore  to  the  same." 

A  jury  of  twelve  (I  could  name  them  all)  found  them, 
guilty.  Judge  Doolittle  sanctioned  it,  and  Judge 
Chase  pronounced  the  sentence,  that  they  be  hung, 
Jan.  28,  1819.  The  Vermont  Legislature  was  peti- 
tioned to  remove  or  commute  the  sentence ;  but  they 
refused  at  first  by  104  against  31,  and  finally  97 
against  42.  Dec.  22d,  Mr.  Whelply,  of  New  Jersey, 
arrived  at  Manchester,  Yt.  with  Colvin,  affirming  that 
Colvin  had  lived  in  Dover,  N.  J.  since  1813.  The 
prisoners  were  set  at  liberty,  and  the  day  was  kept  as 
a  jubilee  by  the  whole  town.  Such  was  the  result 
of  proving  murder  by  supposed  testimony  and 
dreams.  Judges,  jury,  great  lawyers,  the  Legislature 
and  the  whole  community  were  deceived.  Such  has 
been  the  uniform  result  of  attempting  to  prove  infant 
sprinkling  from  Roman  Catholic  relics,  tied  together 
with  a  string  of  inferences  and  suppositions.  Many 
men — good  men  and  great  men — have  been  and  can 
be  led  astray  by  the  arguments  of  the  age,  while  it  re- 
mains a  fact  that  pedobaptism  is  as  destitute  of  proof 
as  the  murder  of  Colvin.  Isa.  viii.  19,  20, 


26 

CHAPTER    II. 
THE    COVENANTS. 

SECTION    I. 

On  pp.  18  and  19,  Mr.  Sawyer  has  said  sortiething 
of  the  covenants;  but,  as  usual  for  pedobaptists,  they 
are  only  mentioned  that  an  inference  may  be  drawn 
from  them.  The  word  covenant  means,  first,  an 
lagreement  between  two  or  more  parties,  on  certain 
terms  ;  and  secondly,  a  promise  made  by  one  party  to 
another.  A  specimen  of  the  first  is  that  national  cov- 
enant made  with  the  Jews  at  Sinai ;  of  the  second  is 
at  Gen.  viii.  21—22:  ix.  9—17.  The  word  em- 
ployed in  the  Old  Testament  is  m^z — in  the  New, 
JmOii^rj,  rendered  covenant,  law,  promise,  command, 
<fec.  There  are  several  covenants  in  the  Scriptures  : 
One  with  Noah,  Gen.  ix.  8 — 17  ;  with  Abraham,  Gen. 
xvii. ;  with  the  whole  nation  of  Israel,  Ex.  xix. — xxiv.; 
with  Phinehas,  Numb.  xxv.  10 — 13 ;  with  David,  2 
Samuel,  vii.  5 — 29 ;  the  covenant  of  works,  Rom.  iii. 
27 ;  of  redemption.  Gen.   xxii.  and  Psa.  Ixxxix.  &c. 

Pedobaptists  say  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  and 
God's  covenant  with  the  gospel  church  is  one  ;  that 
God  made  but  one  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  cir- 
cumcision was  the  seal  of  it.  But  the  Bible  speaks 
plainly  of  a  plurality  of  covenants.  There  is  the  cov- 
enant of  God  concerning  Christ,  (as  McKnight  ren- 
ders it,)  Gal.  iii.  13 — 18,  430  years  before  the  giving 
of  the  law,  Gen.  xii.  1 — 4 ;  and  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, made  24  years  after  that.  Gen.  xvii. ;  and 
the  covenant  of  Horeb,  made  406  years  after  this,- — 
the  law  of  Moses  being  called  a  covenant,  at  Jer.  xxxi. 
SI,  32:  Zech.  xi.  10—11:  Heb.  ix.  4.  God  also 
speaks  definitely  of  a  plurality  of  covenants,  at  Rom. 
ix.  4  :  Gal.  iv.  24 :  Eph.  ii.  12.  Here  are  three  cove- 
nants, at  least.     Now  we  ask,  which  of  these  cove- 


27 

nants  was  made  430  years  before  the  giving  of  the 
law?  for  this  is  the  covenant  by  which  the  blessing 
of  Abraham  comes  on  the  Gentiles  through  Christ. 
Gal  iii.  14.  The  time  here  given  is  of  much  impor- 
tance, and  is  thus  computed  by  Dr.  Macknight :  "  To 
the  birth  of  Isaac,  25  years,  Gen.  xxi.  5 ;  to  the  birth 
of  Jacob,  60  years,  for  Isaac  was  60  years  old  when 
Jacob  was  born.  Gen.  xxv.  26  ;  Jacob  went  down  into 
Egypt  when  he  was  130  years  old,  and  according  to  the 
Septuagint  the  Israelites  sojourned  in  Egypt  215  years,, 
for  thus  they  translate  Ex.  xii.  40.  Now  the  sojourning, 
of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  land  of  Egypt  and  in 
the  land  of  Canaan  was  430  years."  Now  reverse  the 
reckoning.  They  sojourned  in  Egypt  215  years  :  Jo- 
sephus,  book  2,  chapt.  15,  sec.  2 ;  the  age  of  Jacob 
when  he  entered  Egypt  was  130,  Gen.  xlvii.  9  ;  from 
the  birth  of  Jacob  to  the  birth  of  Isaac  60  years  ;  and 
from  the  birth  of  I^aac  to  the  covenant  of  circumcisioD, 
which  was  made  when  Abraham  was  99,  Gen.  xvii. 
1,  is  but  one  year  ;  for  Isaac  was  born  when  Abraham 
was  100,  Gen.  xxi.  5  ;  making  it  but  406  years  to  the 
covenant  of  circumcision.  The  full  time  of  430  would 
carry  us  back  just  25  years  before  the  birth  of  Isaac, 
making  Abraham  75  years  old  at  the  time  when  God 
made  the  covenant  with  him  (see  Gen.  xii.  4)  spoken 
of  at  Gal.  iii.  13 — 18.  Hence  the  evidence  is  con- 
clusive, that  the  covenant  of  Abraham,  Gal.  iii. 
13 — 18,  and  other  places  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  are  two  distinct  things, 
made  24  years  distant  from  each  other,  and  with  re- 
ference to  different  things. 

It  is  manifest  that  the  blessing  of  which  the  apostle 
speaks,  Gal.  iii.  14,  was  not  by  the  law  of  Moses  ;  and 
it  is  equally  evident  it  was  not  by  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, for  the  PROMISE  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  is  the  blessing  named,  was  by  faith  to  the  gen- 
tiles, just  as  it  was  given  to  Abraham.  Horn.  iii.  26 — 


28 

^31 :  iv.  4 — 14.  And  that  covenant  being  confirmed 
of  God  concerning  Christ,  430  years  before  the  cove- 
nant of  Sinai,  and  revealed  to  Abraham  24  years  before 
the  covenant  of  circumcisionj  is  equally  distinct  and 
independent  of  both  ;  for  the  prominent  blessing  in 
Gen.  xii.  is  of  blessing  all  nations  in  Christ  the  seed 
of  Abraham  :  and  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of 
the  covenant,  Gen.  xvii.,  are  the  inheritance  of  Ca- 
naan and  the  muhiplying  of  Abraham's  posterity. 
Circumcision  was  not  attached  to  the  promise,  Gen, 
xii.,  but  to  that  in  the  17th  chapter,  24  years  after- 
ward. This  covenant  concerning  Christ  was  after- 
ward confirmed  with  an  oath.  Gen.  xxii.  16 — 18.  See 
also  Heb.  vi.  16 — IS. 

Eight  years  after  the  covenant  at  Gen.  xii.,  God 
made  another  covenant  with  Abraham,  Gen.  xv.,  res- 
pecting the  land  of  Canaan.  Sixteen  years  after  this. 
Gen.  xvii.,  he  made  another  covenant,  called  by  Ste- 
phen, Acts  vii.  8,  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  And 
yet  we  are  gravely  told,  that  there  was  but  one  cove- 
nant made  with  Abraham, — that  circumcision  was  the 
seal  of  it, — that  this  covenant  and  the  covenant  of 
grace  is  the  same  covenant,  under  different  dispensa- 
tions, with  the  form  of  the  seal  changed  to  baptism. 
Admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  all  of  this,  and  then 
inquire  what  were  the  promises  of  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant ? 

1.  '■  I  will  make  thee  a  great  nation."  2.  "I  will 
bless  thee."  3.  "  I  will  bless  the  families  of  the  earth 
in  thy  seed."  4.  "  Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this 
land,  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  great  river  Eu- 
phrates." 6.  "I  will  make  thee  the  father  of  many 
nations,"  6.  "I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  thy 
seed  after  thee."  7,  ''  I  will  make  kings  to  come  out 
of  thee."  8.  "  Thy  seed  shall  possess  the  gate  of  its 
enemies."  9.  "  My  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh 
for  an  everlasting  covenant." 


29 

These  are  the  blessings  given  to  Abraham,  in  the 
i2ih,  15th,  17th  and  22d  chapters  of  Genesis.  If  this 
is  the  covenant  of  Christ's  church,  then  the  church, 
and  each  individual  member  of  it  who  receives  bap- 
tism as  the  seal  of  the  Ahrahamic  covenant^  may 
confidently  look  for  each  and  all  of  the  above  things  ; 
for  God  has  sealed  them  to  him,  on  pedobaptist  prin- 
ciples. And  if  God  made  but  one  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal,  then  that 
which  is  recorded,  Gen.  xxii.,  is  a  mere  aliquem  in 
niimerum  aggregare^  forgotten  or  otherwise  neglect- 
ed when  the  covenant  was  sealed  and  delivered,  Gen. 
xvii.,  and  not  added  until  about  30  years  after.  Will 
pedobaptists  admit  all  this,  to  get  proof  for  infant 
baDtism  ? 


SECTION      II. 

The  Covenant  of  Redemption. 
Thi3  covenant  is  brought  to  view  in  the  following 
Scriptures:  '-'And  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and 
the  woman,  and  between  her  seed  and  thy  seed,  and 
it  (Hebrew  He)  shalt  bruise  thy  head  and  thou  shalt 
bruise  his  heal.'"'  Gen.  iii.  15.  "  I  will  bless  them 
that  bless  thee  and  curse  them  that  curse  thee,  and  in 
thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
Gen.  xii.  3.  ''  In  blessing  I  will  bless  thee,"  &c.  Gen. 
xxii.  17,  18.  ''Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were 
the  promises  made  ;  he  saith  not  and  to  seeds  as  of 
many,  but  as  of  one :  and  to  thy  seed^  which  is 
Christ."  Gal.  iii.  16.  Isa.  liii.  10—12  :  Eph.  i.  4  ; 
Zee.  vi.  13  ;  Psa.  ii.  6 — 8.  "  Thou  speakest  in  vis- 
ion to  thy  Holy  One  and  said,"  <fec.  Psa.  Ixxxix. 
19 — 36.  From  the  above  Scriptures  it  is  evident  that 
this  covenant  was  made  by  the  persons  of  the  God- 
h^dA  with  reference  to  the  salvation  of  men,  and  must 

r 


so 

have  existed  eteraaiiv.  Although  it  was  not  made 
with  any  man,  yet  God  was  pleased  to  reveal  it  to 
Adam,  Abraham,  David,  Isaiah,  Zechariah,  and  all 
th@  patriarchs  and  prophets  of  old.  But  the  most 
glorious  and  full  revelation  that  we  find  is  to  Da- 
vid. Psa.  ii.  4—8  :  Ixviii.  14 — 18  :  Ixxxix. :  xci.  with 
others.  This  is  a  ^racioi^^  covenant^  but  not  the  cov- 
enant OF  GRACE. 


SECTION      III. 

The  Cove?iant  of  Grace. 
This  covenant  is  made  and  exists    between  God 
and  each  Christian  ;  and  this  being  made  with  a  man, 
he  t,s  in  grace  and  grace  in  him.     It  is  brought  to 
view  at  Gal.  i.  6  ;     Eph.  i.  7  :     ii.  5 — 10:    Gen.    xil 
1_„4;    Tit.   iii.  7;     1  Cor.  i.  4,     "Incline   your  ear 
and  come  unto  me  ;    hear  and  your  soul  shall   live ; 
and  1   will  make   an  everlasting  covenant  with  you, 
cvGU  the  sure  mercies  of  David."  Isa.   Ixv.  3.      This 
claijs  of  Scriptures  does  not  refer  to  the  covenant  of 
redemption  J  for  they  speak  of  a  co^^enant  made  with 
tiie-  man    who   will  incline   his  ear  and    hear  God. 
These  Scriptures  can  not  refer  to  the  covenant  of  cir- 
ciuncision,   for  they  are  addressed  alike  to  Jew  and 
Gentile.     But    circumcision   was    not   given   to   the 
C^ontiles,  and   the  Jews  had  already  been  circumcised 
at  eight  da.ys  old,  (See  Gen.  xVii.  9 — 14.)  and  the  in- 
dividual who  became  interested  in  this  covenant  was 
id  enjoy  the  salvation  of  God.     But  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  gave  no  such  promise ;    therefore,  the 
•covenant  spoken  of  in  Isaiah  Iv.  3,  was  the  covenant 
of  grace.     This  covenant  does  not  exist  between  God 
aod  the    unregenerate.     Gen.  vi.   5 :    Mat.  xv.  19 : 
John  viii»  44 :  Kom.  iii.  10^-18  :  viii.  4 :  Prov.  i.  24  : 
Mai.  XXV.   46..     This  view   of  the  subject  does  not 


31 

militate  against   the  salvation   of  infants.     We  have 
no  doubt  that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  saved.     Since 
the  days  of  Origenj  however,  there  has  been  much 
doubt  of  this.     The  churches  at  Alexandria,  Rome, 
and  in  Africa  were  led  into  error  on  this  doctrine,  and 
some  denominations  in  this  age  are  not  free  from  per- 
plexities.    "  God  doth  not  leave  all  men  to  perish  in 
the  estate  of  sin  and  misery  into  which  they  fell  by 
the  breach  of  the  first  covenant,  commonly  called  the 
covenant  of  works,  but  of  his  mere  loye  and  mercy 
he  delivereth  his  elect  out  of  it.     Baptism  is  not  to  he 
administered  to  any  out  of  the  visible  church,  and  so 
strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise,  till  they  profess 
their  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him.     But  in- 
fants  descending  from  parents  either  both  or  hut  one 
of  them  professing  faith   in  Christ  and  obedience   to 
him,  are  in  that  respect  within  the  covenant,  and  are 
to  be  baptized."  Presbyterian  Confession   of  Faith, 
pp.    156 — 287.       I   see  no  consitency    in  raising  a 
scheme   to  save  the  infants  of  church  members,   and 
not  those  of  persons  out   of  the  church.     An  infant 
is  an  infant^  and  by  nature  they  are  all  equal ;    and  I 
can  not   believe  that  the  infant  child  of  my  neighbor 
IS  lost,   because   its  parent  is   not  a  member  of  the 
church.  See  Matt.  xix.  14.     God  makes  the  covenant 
of  2:race  with  each  individual  at  the  instant  he  is  re- 
£:eaerated  or  believes.  John  iii.  18:  vi.  53,  54:  Rom, 
lx.  4  :  iv.  9 — 13.     I  can  not  give  an  account  of  all  the 
persons   with  whom  God  has  made  the  covenant  of 
grace,  but  would  present  a  few  instances  only.     "  By 
faith  Noah — by  faith  Abel — by  faith  Enoch — by  faith 
Abraham,  when  he  was  called  to  go  out  into  a  place 
which    he  should  after   receive   for   an  inheritance, 
obeyed."  Heb.  xi.  4 — 8.     Here  the  Holy  Spirit  dates 
the  particular  time  when  Abraham  exercised  faith  and 
began  to  obey  God.     This  faith  is  the  fruit  of  regen- 
eration} aud  regeneration  is  the  act  by  which  men  are 


32 

brought  into  the  covenant  of  grace  with  God.  It 
should  never  be  forgotten  that  the  account  of  Abra- 
ham's entering  into  the  covenant  of  grace  is  not  re- 
corded, as  pedobaptists  say,  at  the  12th,  15th,  17th  and 
22d  chapters  of  Genesis,  but  at  Gen.  xii.  1 — 4.  Pre- 
vious to  this  he  was  a  pagan,  but  here  he  possessed 
(Rom.  iv.  11,) ''  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he 
had,  yet  being  uncircumcised.''''  At  Isa.  Iv.  3,  God 
speaks  of  making  the  covenant  of  grace  with  David, 
and  at  2  Sam.  xxiii.  5,  David  speaks  of  the  same 
transaction:  "Although  my  house  be  not  so  with 
God,  yet  he  hath  made  with  me  an  everlasting  cov- 
enant, ordered  in  all  things  and  sure."  The  strong 
faith  of  Abraham,  David,  Noah,  Moses  and  others,  is 
often  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  not  that  these 
men  could  believe  for  us  that  we  might  be  saved  by 
proxy,  but  they  are  set  forth  as  examples  for  us.  Sea 
Mat.  iii.  9  :  Luke  xix.  9  :  Rom.  iv.  16  :  Gal.  iii.  6—9. 
The  New  Testament  saints  entered  into  the  covenant 
of  grace  for  themselves  in  precisely  the  same  manner 
that  Abraham  did  at  Genesis  xii.  1 — 4.  God  called  ; 
they  believed  and  obeyed,  and  the  work  was  done. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  fully  sustained  by  what 
is  said  at  Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 33  :  "  Behold  the  days  come 
that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  L 
rael ;"  and  when  Paul  was  urging  the  Jews  to  believe 
on  Christ  and  enter  into  the  covenant  of  grace,  he 
took  this  prophecy  for  his  argument.  Heb.  viii.  7 — 13. 

I  have  dwelt  sufficiently  on  this  to  show  you  that 
the  covenant  of  grace  is  a  separate  and  distinct  thing 
from  the  covenant  of  redemption  and  the  covenant  of 
circumcision.  It  is  not  made  with  nations,  but  with 
individuals.  It  is  not  made  by  proxy,  but  in  person  ; 
not  with  Abraham  for  all  his  seed,  nor  with  gentile 
2iarents  for  all  our  children,  but  must  be  made  be- 
tween God  and  every  soul  that  enters  heaven.  John 
iii.  3.     Therefore  if  you  should  be  taught  that  \%  is. 


33 

needful  to  have  your  children  baptized  in  order  to  bring 
them  into  the  Ahrahamic  covenant  of  grace,  just  ask 
the  teacher  to  explain  himself,  and  show  you  if  he 
means  that  baptizing  the  infant  brings  it  into  the  cov- 
enant of  redemption;  which  is  between  the  persons  of 
the  Godhead,  and  made  with  no  man  ;  or  into  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcision,  (Gen.  xvii.  9 — 14,)  which  had 
no  promise  of  salvation,  and  belongs  exclusively  to 
the  Jews;  or  into  the  covenant  of  grace  made  with 
Abraham,  (Gen.  xii.  1 — 4,)  and  with  all  other  saints 
at  the  time  of  regeneration,  and  with  no  others.  A 
iQW  such  questions  would  unravel  the  a7nhiguity  of 
their  teaching,  and  learn  them  to  talk  philosophically. 


SECTION       IV. 

The  Covenant  of  Circumcision, 

I.  This  covenant  is  found  recorded  in  the  17th 
chapter  of  Genesis.  Some  of  our  pedobaptist  breth- 
ren esteem  it  the  foundation  of  infant  baptism.  How- 
ever, it  is  a  well  known  fact  that  some  whole  church- 
es have  renounced  infant  baptism,  other  churches  are 
awfully  divided,  others  agree  to  let  each  member  do 
as  he  feels  inclined:  thus  acting  on  what  is  called  the 
accommodation  plan.  But,  if  the  rite  is  from  God, 
and  so  vastly  important,  as  they  say  it  is,  how  can 
the  church  license  her  members  to  neglect  it  ?  There 
is  no  middle  ground ;  infant  baptism  is  wrong,  or  it 
is  right.  Many  contend  that  it  is  right,  and  say  that 
it  had  its  origin  in  this  covenant.  Therefore,  we  will 
review  the  argument. 

II.  The  Covenants  of  Grace  and  Circumcision  not 
the  same. — The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith, 
after  extolling  the  Abrahamic  covenant,-  page  38,  says, 
''There  are  not,  therefore,  two  covenants  of  grace, 
differing  in  substance,   but  one  and  the  same,  under 


different  dispensations."  I  cheerfully  admit  that  thr 
covenant  of  grace  existed  in  Abraham's  day.  Hence 
the  apostle  says,  "The  Scriptures,  foreseeing  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  be- 
fore the  gospel  unto  Abraham^  saying,  In  thee  shall 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.  Gal.  iii.  8. 
But  I  positively  deny  its  being  the  same  as  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision.  A  man  may  be  under  two  or 
more  sets  of  law  at  the  same  time.  As  a  citizen  of 
New  Haven,  I  am  under  its  corporation  laws.  At  the 
same  time  I  am  under  the  laws  of  this  State,  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  laws  of  God  ;  but  who  will  say, 
therefore,  that  these  laws  are  one  ?  Abraham,  Isaac, 
Jacob,  David,  Isaiah  and  Daniel  were  in  the  covenant 
of  grace.  They  were  also  in  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, but  this  does  not  prove  these  covenants 
one.  Christ,  the  evangelists  and  apostles  were  in  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  and  at  the  same  time  in  the 
gospel.  This  does  not  prove  them  both  the  same. 
The  fact  is  that  the  covenants  of  grace  and  circum- 
cision are  as  distinct  as  the  gospel  and  the  law  of  Mo- 
ses. The  Jews  attempted  to  identify  them,  but  Paul 
labored  to  keep  a  line  of  demarcation  plain  between 
them,  while  writing  to  the  Hebrews,  Romans,  Gala- 
tians  and  others.  See  Gal.  v.  2 — 6  :  1  Cor.  vii.  19 : 
Rom.  iv.  9,  10  :  iii.  1,  2  :  ii.  25  :  Acts  xvi,  1 — 3  : 
Col.  iii.  II:   1  Cor.  vii.  18. 

Circumcision  was  a  national  mark  ;  and  a  man 
might  be  in  the  covenant  of  grace  and  be  circumcis- 
ed, or  he  might  be  circumcised  and  not  be  in  the  cov- 
enant of  grace  ;  for  they  are  not  only  separable^  but 
in  fact  never  were  identified,  although  they  might 
meet  in  the  same  subject. 

Wm.  F.  Hamilton  says  :  "  Nor  is  this  covenant  the 
same  as  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  i.  e.  it  does  not  con- 
vey a  promise  of  salvation  to  Abraham  and  the  speci- 
fied seed,  in  this  covenant,  nor  to  either  of  them.     Of 


^5 

this  covenant  circumcision  was  the  original  seal, 
Tfow  we  all  know  that  to  whomsoever  any  covenant 
or  contract  is  sealed,  that  seal  actually  secures  to  him 
the  full  benefit  of  all  the  stipulations  contained  in  that 
covenant.  If,  then,  this  covenant  be  the  same  as  the 
covenant  of  grace,  since  circumcision  was  God's  seal, 
not  man's,  then  every  circumcised  person  must  have 
been  infallibly  sure  of  salvation.  The  ancient 
Jews  held  this  opinion,  but  the  language  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles  has  taught  us  differently." — Anabapiism 
Disproved,  p.  19. 

III.  The  Subjects  of  Circumcision. — "And  ye  shall 
circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin."  Gen.  xvii.  11. 
This  makes  it  binding  on  Abraham,  and  no  other. 
Hence  the  law  has  to  be  enlarged  :  "Every  man  child 
in  your  generation."  ver.  12.  Here  is  authority  to 
circumcise  his  children.  "He  that  is  born  in  thy 
house  or  bought  with  thy  money."  This  opens  a 
larger  door  ;  for  (Gen.  xiv.  14,)  Abraham  had  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  soldiers,  able  to  bear  arms,  all 
born  in  his  house.  And,  froiri  this  time  forward,  he 
was  to  circumcise  all  others  who  were  thus  born  or 
bought.  This  is  the  extent  of  the  law  ;  and,  whether 
they  were  saints  or  infidels,  if  they  sustained  the 
above  relations  they  must  be  circumcised.  In  the 
apostolic  age  there  were  some  Judaizing  teachers  who 
fell  into  the  same  mistake  which  modern  pedobaptists 
entertain  ;  i.  e.  that  being  circumcised  was  making  a 
profession  of  religion,  and  that  the  gentiles  as  well  as 
the  Jews  were  bound  to  attend  to  it.  In  the  15th 
chapter  of  Acts,we  are  informed  that  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas brought  tidings  to  Jerusalem  that  many  of  the 
gentiles  were  converted  :  verses  5,  6,  "  There  arose  up 
certain  of  the  sect  of  the  pharisees  v/ho  believed,  say- 
ing that  it  was  needful  to  circumcise  them  and  com- 
-mand  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses ;  and  the  apos- 
tles came  together  to  consider  this  matter,"     After  de- 


36 

liberation  upon  the  question,  they  came  to  this  result ; 
(verses  28,  29,)  "  For  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  to  us,  to  lay  upon  you  (gentile  converts,) 
no  greater  burden  than  these  necessary  things  :  that 
ye  abstain  from  meats  oSered  to  idols;  from  blood, 
aqd  from  things  strangled,  and  from  fornication : 
From  which  if  ye  keep  yourselves,  ye  shall  do  well. 
Fare  •ye  well."  They  arrived  at  this  conclusion  be- 
cause circumcision  was  never  binding  on  the  gentiles, 
and  because  to  the  Jews  it  was  never  abrogated.  For 
Christ  was  circumcised ;  (Luke  ii.  21,)  and  all  the 
Jews,  whether  believers  or  infidels,  continued  the 
practice:  "This,  therefore,  is  what  Herodotus  saith. 
that  the  Syrians  which  are  in  Palestine  are  circum- 
cised, but  there  are  no  inhabitants  of  Palestine  cir- 
cumcised excepting  the  Jews. — Josephus  against  Ap- 
ion,  book  1,  sec.  22. 

IV.  Is  circtimcision  the  same  to  all  loho  receive  it 
that  it  was  to  Abraham? — [  wish  to  consider  this 
question,  because  pedobaptists  say  that  "circumcision, 
and  baptism  its  substitute,  is  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
of  grace  :  it  was  so  to  Abraham,  and  is  so  to  all  who 
receive  it ;"  and  to  sustain  themselves  quote  Rom.  iv. 
11:  "  And  he  received  THE  5i^^  of  circumcision;  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  his  faith  which  he  had 
yet  being  uncircumcised.^^  But  it  is  evident  that  cir- 
cumcision or  baptism  could  not  be  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  the  faith  of  an  infant  eight  days  old.  The 
gentile  proselyte  could  not  claim  the  promises  made 
to  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.  6  :  "  I  will  make  thee  exceed- 
ing fruitful,  and  will  make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings 
shall  come  out  of  thee."  But  he  could  claim.  Gen. 
xvii.  8 :  "I  will  give  unto  thee  and  unto  thy  seed  af- 
ter thee,  the  land,"  &c.,  which  Abraham  could  not 
claim.  Acts  vii.  5 :  "  And  he  gave  him  (Abraham)  no 
inheritance  in  it;  no,  not  so  much  as  to  set  his  foot 
©H.^     See  Gen.  xxiii.  4 — 20. 


37 

Mr.  Cowles  says,  "  That  which  St.  Paul  meant  by 
taWing  circiimcisioQ  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
his  faith,  is  simply  this:  That  the  promptitude  and 
dieerfiihiess  with  which  he  received  and  obeyed  this 
self-denyinof  duly  was  a  seal,  or  token,  or  confirming 
evidence  of  the  sincerity  of  his  faith." 

"It  appears  to  be  conceded  by  pedobaptists,  that 
there  were  peculiarities  belonging  to  the  covenant 
with  Abraham,  although  it  be  considered  as  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  that  it  is  not  made  wilk  other  be- 
lievers  in  Ike  same  form,  or  to  the  same  extent.  In- 
deed, this  is  too  obvious  to  be  denied.  But  these  pe- 
culiar items  are  called  appendages  to  the  covenant 
of  sfi'iice.  i.  e.  sornethinof  added  ov  annexed  to  it. 

"But  this  notion  is  manifestly  without  a  foundation. 
They  were  not  appendages  to  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, but  component  and  essential  parts  of  it,  as 
much  so  as  an,?/  item  of  a/iy  covenant,  or  will,  or  deed, 
whatever,  belongs  to  the  instrument  itselj]  and  dis- 
tinguishes it  from  all  other  covenants,  wills  or  deeds. 

"This  covenant,  therefore,  when  properly  analyzed 
and  defined,  does  not  contain  any  prenjises  from 
which  the  baptisui  of  believers  can  be  justly  inferredj 
in  as  much  as  Abraham's  case  was  peculiar,  and  the 
same  covenant  is  not  made  with  otirer  believers,  es- 
pecially with  gentile  believers  ;  and  m  as  much  as 
baptism,  provided  it  be  designed  to  answer  any  of 
the  ends  of  circumcision,  cannot  be  pretended  to  an- 
swer all  of  them  ;  nor  can  it  be  considered  as  a  seal 
of  the  same  covenant." — /.  Cltadiuidc's  Essay  on 
Baptism,,  page  i  10. 

V.    The  Design,  of  Circumcision. — 

1.  Circumcision  was  desitrned  for  a  bond  of  un- 
ion, to  keep  the  Jews  separate  from  otlier  nations,  G^n, 
xxxiv.  14:  "We  can  not  do  this  thing,  to  give  our 
isister  to  one  that  is  uncircnmcised."  Dent.  vii.  3: 
4 


38 

"Neither    shalt   thou   make  marriages   with   them.* 
Ezra  ix.  1,  2 ;  Acts  x.  28. 

2.  And  as  a  consequence  that  Christ  should  come 
of  the  seed  of  Abraham.  Gen.  xxii.  17,  18:  Gal.  iii. 
16  :    Heb.  ii.  16. 

3.  To  point  them  to  the  virtue  of  his  blood  and  the 
necessity  of  regeneration.  Deut.  x.  16  :  Jer.  iv.  4 : 
Rom.  ii.  29:  Col.  ii.  11.     ♦ 

4.  To  keep  them  from  idolatry,  Gen.  xvii.  7:  "I 
will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.** 
Ex.  xxxiv.  14:  "For  thou  shalt  worship  no  other 
God.' 

6.  That  they  should  keep  the  oracles  of  God.  Rom, 
iii.  1,  2:  Deut.  iv.  7,  S:  Vs.  Ixxviii.  5:  Eph.  ii.  12. 

6.  To  give  them  an  everlasting  title  to  the  land  of 
Canaan.  Gen.  xvii.  8.  *•  And  I  will  give  unto  Ihee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a 
stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting 
possession." 

As  God  here  made  an  everlasting  covenant-deed  of 
conveyance  of  this  land  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  he 
sealed  it  with  an  everlasting  seal  or  token,  and  1  have 
no  evidence  that  Abraham,  or  God  himself,  lias  ever 
made  any  other  conveyance  of  that  land.  It  is  true 
that  the  Romuns  overcame  the  Jews,  and  possessed  it 
by  force;  but  the  face  of  the  dekd,  and  the  token  or 
SEAL,  stand  immutable.  Gen.  xvii.  The  Jews  are 
thrown  out  of  the  use  of  it  by  rebellion,  (Dciit.  iv.  27: 
xxviii.  25 — 64  :  Jer.  iv.  11—18  :  xviii.  16,  17.)  but  still 
they  continue  to  circumcise  all  their  males;  iind  it  ia 
right  they  should,  for  if  they  neglect  this,  they  lose  the 
title  to  their  land.  Gen.  xvii.  14.  "  The  uncircumcised 
man  child,  whose  flesh  of  Ins  foreskin  is  nol  circumcis- 
ed, that  soul  shjjil  be  cut  off  (not  from  fiis  God,  but) 
from  his  people  ;   he  hath  broken  my  covenant.'' 

Hence  all  who  are  circumcised  are  in  this  covenant 
with  God,  whether  believer  or  injidel ;  and  we  look 


39 

for  the  time  when  he  will  bring  them  to  possess  Pales- 
tine ao:ain.  Dr.  Ely  completely  demonstrated  this 
fact,  in  his  production  respecting  the  Jews;  and  the 
word  of  God  is  full  on  this  point.  1  do  not  now  refer 
to  those  prophecies  which  speak  of  the  Jews'  return 
from  the  Babylonish  captivity;  but  to  those  which 
speak  of  things  which  have  never  been,  and  therefore 
remain  to  be  fulfilled  to  the  Jews.  See  Kzek.  xi.  17 
—20:  xvi.  61:  xxxvi.  21—28:  Jer.  xxxi.  34:  Heb. 
viii.  6—13:  Ezek.  xx.  37—44:  Micah  vii.  15—20 1 
Rom.  xi.  25—27:  2  Cor.  iii.  15,  16:  Heb.  x.  15—17. 
This  class  of  Scriptures  speak  of  the  Jews  all  being 
converted  to  Christ,  and  dwelling,  in  the  peaceable  en- 
joyment of  the  Christian  religion,  in  Palestine.  This 
was  not  their  condition  when  they  returned  from  Bab- 
ylon, nor  has  it  been  at  any  other  time;  it  remains 
yet  to  be  accomplished.  But  to  whom  are  these  pro- 
mises made?  Not  to  the  uncircomcised  Jew ;  for  he 
has  broken  the  covenant ;  Gen.  xvii.  14;  hui  exclu- 
sively to  the  circumcised.  Biit  is  it  a  fact,  that  bap- 
tism will  entitle  them  to  their  land,  and  all  the  promis- 
es of  the  covenant  of  circumcision?  If  so,  where  is 
the  Scripture  to  warrant  the  belief?  Some  writers,, 
however,  to  susttiin  pedobaptism,  &c.,  make  it  simply  a 
seal  of  the  covenant  of,  and  door  of  admittance  into,  the 
true  church  of  God.  This  glaring  anti-scriptural  sen- 
timent is  advanced  by  nearly  all  of  them  who  have 
written  upon  baptism.  Mr.  Cowles  says,  "  Circum- 
cision  was   the  door  of  admittance  into  the  ancient 

church. The  same  cpialifications  were  required  for 

membership  in  the  Jev/ish  as  in  the  Christian  church." 
— Essay ^  pp.  11,  53. 

Mr.  Sawyer  says,  "While  circumcision  was  the 
initiatory  rite  of  the  true  church,  and  seal  of  subjection 
to  God,  it  answered  the  same  purpose  as  the  corres- 
ponding Christian  rite. Judaism  and  Christianity 

therefore  are  two  successive  dispensations  of  the  same 


40 

relio^ion.- Both  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches 

v/ere  constituted  of  professed  believers  and  professed 
>vorshipers  of  God,  and  required  faith  and  obedience 
of  all  their  adult  subjects."  pp.  14,  17. 

Upon  the  thesis  of  these  gentlemen,  this  ancient 
church  was  organized  in  Abraham's  family,  for  here 
began  what  they  call  the  initiatory  rite.  But  were  all 
who  were  circumcised  such  believers  as  Christ  and 
the  apostles  described  ?  Did  circurr;cision  introduce 
them  to  church  relation  and  priviIeo;es?  Was  Ish- 
mael  a  member  of  the  true  church  7  See  Gen.  xxi.  9  : 
Gal.  iv.  28 — 30.  Were  the  tbree  hundred  and  eighteen 
adults  who  v/ere  born  in  Abruham's  house,  (Gen.  xiv. 
14,)  and  circumcised,  (xvii.  27,)  admitted  to  church 
membership  on  a  profession  of  evangelical  faith  ?  Had 
the  thousands  that  perished  under  the  wrath  of  God, 
(Ex.  xxxii.  27,  28:  Num.  xvi.  35:  2  Sam.  xxiv.  15: 
2  Chron.  xiii.  17.)  received  Jeiiovah's  seal  of  the  im- 
mutable covenaut  of  graced  ^Vere  the  Jews  who 
murdered  the  Lord,  and  were  not  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham, but  of  the  devil,  (John  viii.  25 — 59,)  all  members 
of  the  same  church  with  Christ  and  his  apostles?  See 
Mr.  S.,  p.  14. 

Without  a  particle  of  evidence  to  sustain  themselves, 
these  gentlemen  assert  the  above  for  truth;  but  the 
truth  is,  circumcision  is  not  a  door  into  tlie  church, 
nor  was  it  at  any  former  period  ;  and  if  Abraham's 
family  wcvq  organized  as  a  chnrch,  there  appears  but 
one  believer  to  three  hundred  and  eighteen  unconvert- 
ed men.  If  this  is  the  model  after  which  Presbyteri- 
an churches  are  built,  it  accounts  for  the  present  con- 
dition of  their  General  Assembly,  but  is  wholly  unlike 
their  refusing  to  baptize  their  slaves  and  other  do- 
mestics. 

VI.      Is  circumcision  abrogated  7 

1.  Testimony  of  the  Lord.  "  I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed   aftej^ 


41 

thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant.''^ Gen.  xvii.  7.  "  Thou  shall  keep  my  covenant, 
therefore,  thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  all  their 
generations.''  Gen.  xvii.  9.  See  also.  Gen.  xxvi.  3: 
1  Chron.  xvi.  15-18. 

2.  Testimony  of  the  apostles.  1.  The  apostles  de- 
chire  circumcision  indifferent  in  the  Christian  religion, 
which  tliey  could  not  have  done  if  it  had  been  abro- 
gated. '-Is  any  man  called,  being  circumcised,  let 
him  not  become  uncircumcised  ;  is  any  man  called 
in  uncircumcision,  let  him  not  b^  circumcised;  cir- 
cumcision is  nothing)  and  imcirciimcision  is  nothings 
but  the  keepinof  of  the  commandments  of  God."  1  Cor. 
vii.  18,  19.  See  also,  Col.  iii.  11:  Gal.  ii.  3—25:  v. 
6:  vi.  12:  Rom.  iv.  9,  10.  If  God  had  not  abolished 
circumcision,  the  Jews  could  not  have  kept  his  com- 
mandments and  neo^lected  it;  Gen.  xvii.  14;  and  if 
God  had  abolished  it,  they  could  not  have  kept  his 
commandments  and  still  practiced  il.  2.  The  Jews 
advocated  its  perpetuity.  Acts  xv.  1.  Paul  taught 
that  circumcision  was  still  binding.  Rom.  iii.  1,  2. 
Converted  Jews  in  the  Christian  church  continued  to 
practice  it  tlirouo:h  the  whole  New  Testament.  Jesus 
Christ  was  circumcised;  Luke  ii.  21 ;  He  was  a  min- 
iSTER.  of  the  circumcision.  Rom.  xv.  8.  Paul  was 
circumcised.  Phil.  iii.  5.  Paul  circumcised  Timothy, 
after  he  had  been  baptized.  Acts  xvi.  3.  See  also, 
Rom.  iii.  30  :  Gal.  ii.  7,  8:  Col.  iv.  11.  But  it  is  said 
that  Paul  forbid  circumcision  at  Gal.  v.  2 — 4.  Dr. 
Wardlaw  says,  "  i/"  ye  be  circumcised  Christ  shall 
profit  you  nothing,  is  equivalent  to  saying,  If  ye  em- 
brace this  doctrine  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing. 
This  is  clear  from  the  circumstance  that  being  circum- 
cised in  the  one  verse,  corresponds  to  h^'m^  justified  by 
the  law  in  the  other." — Essay  on  Baptism,  p.  32. 

3.  It  is  said  that  Paul  was  arraigned  and  tried  for 
preaching  ac^ainst  circumcision.      "And  they  are  aR 

4* 


42- 

informed  of  thee,  that  thou  teachest  all  the  Jews  which? 
are  among  the  gentiles,  to  forsake  Moses,  saying  they 
ought  not  to  circumcise  their  children."  Acts  xxi.  21. 
It  is  true  that  Paul  was  apprehended  upon  this  charge^ 
and  brought  before  the  Sanhedrim;  hut  after  a  full 
examination,  even  the  Pharisees  said,  (Acts  xxiii.  9,) 
"we  find  no  fault  in  this  man."  Paul  did  teach  that 
the  Jews  need^  not  keep  the  law  of  Moses,  for  that  was 
abolished,  and  that  the  gentiJes  need  not  circumcise 
their  children;  (see  Acts  xxi.  25;)  but  he  did  not 
teach  that  the  Jews  need  not  circumcise  their  infants, 
for  he  knew  that  this  was  binding  on  them  by  the  law 
of  heaven. 

The  Jews  and  modern  pedobaptists  embrace  simi- 
lar errors.  The  Jews  suppose  that  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision is  identified  with  their  Mosaic  religion  ;  and 
pedobaptists  suppose  it  to  be  identified  with  their  Chris- 
tian religion  ;  but  it  is  as  independent  of  the  one  as 
the  other.  The  Jews  esteem  both  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision and  the  Mosaic  covenant,  now  obligatory; 
the  pedobaptists  esteem  them  both  abrogated  ;  while 
the  fact  is,  the  Mosaic  covenant  is  broken  and  abol- 
ished ;  Jer.  xxxi.  31- -33  :  Zech.  xi.  10,  1 1  :  Heb.  viii. 
4 — 13;  but  the  covenant  of  circumcision  is  an  ever- 
lasting covenant,  (Gen.  xvii.  13,)  and  binding  on  ev- 
ery male  of  Alrrahanvs  seed  to  this  day. 

3.  The  testimony  of  pedobaptists. 

^' The  covenant  of  circumcision,  so  far  from  being 
a  part  of  tlie  law  and  partaking  of  its  terrjporary  na- 
ture, was  a  covenant  which  existed  long  before  it, 
which  could  not  be  disannulled  either  by  its  introduc- 
tion or  its  cessation,  but  which  continues  to  this  day." 
— Dr.    Wardiaw  on  Baptism^  p.  28. 

"Besides,  as  circumcision  never  was  obligatory  on 
the  gentiles  in  their  separate  national  capacity,  and 
never  was  abrogated  to  the  Jews^  but  remains  in  full 
force  to  them,  there  can  be  no  ground  to  consider  bap- 


4^ 

lism  as  a  substitute.     As  the-  case  is,  such  a  thing; 
could  not  be." — Chadwick  on  Baptism,  p.  23. 

VII.  Is  baptism  a  substitute  for  circumcision? 
It  certainly  is  not;  for  as  the  rite  was  enjoined  upon 
the  Jews  and  never  was  abrogated,  the  original  stands^, 
and  no  substitute  is  required  or  can  be  ;  and,  as  we 
are  not  Jeivs,  but  gentiles,  we  need  no  substitute  for  a 
rite  which  never  belonged  to  us.  There  is  not  a  pas- 
saofe  in  the  whole  Bible  that  even  hints  at  this  doctrine.. 
It  depends  alone  on  pedobaptist  assertions  for  it  foun- 
dation,' and  that  of  the  more  ignorant  and  illiterate 
part ;   for  well  read  pedobaptists  say  as  follows : 

Dr.  Emmons,  "Can  we,  therefore,  justly  conclude 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  believers  now  to  circumcise  their 
children  or  even  to  baptize  them,  because  it  was  once 
the  duty  of  the  Jews  to  circumcise  theirs.  The  truth, 
is,  we  must  learn  the  particular  duties  of  believers 
under  the  present  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  from  the  dispensation  itself,  which  enjoins  all 
the  peculiar  duties  which  belong  to  it." 

*'  In  every  view  of  the  case,  therefore,  the  argu- 
ment for  infant  baptism,  grounded  on  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  or  any  covenant  or  promise  in  the  Bible,, 
fails,  and  ouo^ht  never  to  be  plead." — Chadwick  on 
Baptism.,  p.  128. 

Dr.  J.  Owen,  "No  aro^ument  can  be  drawn  from 
the  ceremonial  law  to  the  gospel,  because  we  are  not 
under  the  obligation  of  that  law." 

"  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament, 
ordained  by  Jesus  Christ." — Presbyterian  Confession 
of  Faith,  p.  120. 

"Arguments  drawn,  from  the  types  and  figures  con= 
elude  not,  unless  they  be  types  ordained  of  God  to 
Buch  use  ;  neither  are  the  sacraments  of  the  gospel 
to  be  squared  according  to  the  patterns  of  the  ceremo- 
nial law.  '  We  also  deny  that  the  ceremonies  of  the 
IfkW  are  figures  and  types  of  our  sacraments ;  but  both 


44 

ikeir  sacraments  and  ours  are  figures  and  represen- 
tatiojis  of  Christ." — Dr.  Willei,  Synopsis  of  Papism^ 
p.  643. 

"As  God,  by  virtue  of  the  said  engagement  with 
Christ,  has  uiade  distinct  covenants  with  men,  al- 
though they  have  all  one  leading  feature  ;  and  as  it  is 
manifest  from  the  very  iiistriiments  themselves,  that 
there  is  a  distinction  not  only  between  the  new  cove- 
nant under  the  gospel  and  the  Sinai  covenant,  but  al- 
so between  M/^  and  the  Abrahamic  coveAVdiW'^  it  is 
manifestly  not  consistent  to  consider  baptis^mas  a  sub- 
stitute for  circumcision.  It  does  not  belong  to  the 
same  covenant^  and,  therefore,  can  not  be  a  substitute. 
Neither  is  it  appointed  for  the  same  ends;  certainly 
not  for  all  of  them;  which  it  must  have  been  to  make 
it  a  proper  substitute.  Neither  are -we  any  "where 
told  in  tlie  scriptures  that  it  is  a  substitute.  We  con- 
clude, therefore,  that  infant  baptism  was  not  known  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  nor  the  succession  of  baptism 
in  the  place  of  circumcision." — Chadwick  on  Baptisniy 
p.  113. 


SECTION      v. 

T/ie  Mosaic  Covenant. 
The  law  of  Moses  is  called  a  covenant.  Ex.  xxxiv. 
28:  Lev.  xxvi.  15:  Deut.  iv.  13:  xxix.  1.  It  is  im- 
portant to  examine  this  covenant,  as  here  is  the  origin 
and  constitution  of  what  Stephen  calls  ^r^  lyxXr.aiq  iv  t^ 
Igrifia,  translated  "the  church  in  the  wilderness."  Some 
pedob«ptists  say  that  ^/te/y  church  originated  in  Abra- 
ham's family,  Gen.  xvii.,  406  years  before  the  law  of 
Moses;  but  if  making  a  covenant  with  God,  offering 
Bacrifices,  prayers,  &c.  constitutes  a  church,  (hen  not 
only  Abraham  and  his  family  became  a  church,  but 
we  find  many  such.     Noah,  who  was  a  preacher  of 


45 

righteousness,  2  Pet.  ii.  5.  and  offered  sacrifices  and 
prayers  to  God,  with  all  his  family,  entered  into  cove^ 
nant,  Gen.  ix.  9 — 17,  in  which  God  gave  to  him  and 
his  seed,  not  simply  the  hind  of  Canaan,  but  the  whole 
world,  with  many  other  blessino^s,  and  the  rainbow  as 
a  token  or  seal  of  that  covenant;  and  not  simply  pro- 
misinof  that  he  would  remove  the  present  possessors, 
but  did  remove  them  at  once  by  an  universfil  flood. 
Josiah,  his  family,  and  the  whole  nation,  eniered  into 
covenant.  2  Kinofs  xxiii.  1 — 30.  Asa,  his  family, 
and  all  the  nation,  entered  into  covenant.  2  Chron.  xv» 
8 — 19.  To  the  covenant  with  Noah  and  Abrahans, 
God  gave  each  equally  a  token  or  seal.  Gen.  ix,  12: 
xvii.  11.  Bur  still,  the  Mosaic  covenanters  only  are 
known  as  the  ''^^'p,  Uy.hjUiu^  or  cono^re^ation.  All  Jew- 
ish covenants,  subsequent  to  the  Mosaic,  are  but  trans- 
actions of  the  Mosaic  organization  :  and  all  previous 
covenants  and  organizations  are  not  only  destitute  of  the 
name,  but  of  nearly  every  essential  of  a  church.  Abra- 
ham's  posterity,  previous  to  the  Sinai  covenant,  had 
no  church,  no  Bible,  no  Sabbath,  no  priests  or  elders, 
no  sanctuary,  no  baptism,  no  passover,  no  sin<ring,  no 
discipline,  but  simply  existed  as  any  other  nation  does 
where  there  are  one  thousand  unregeneraie  souls  to 
one  true  child  of  God;  and  we  could  as  consistently 
call  the  whole  French  nation  the  chnrch  of  God,  as 
the  Jews.  But  when  they  left  Egypt,  there  was  a  for- 
mal organization  of  the  whole  nation  into  not  "  th© 
church  of  God,"  but  a  pedahaptist  congregation. 

The  word  txxhjaia  is  formed  of  c;^,  out,  and  xai^«> 
call, — ^nxXrjuta,  called  out ;  lience  a  couvoealion.  In 
considering  the  Mosaic  church,  we  notice, 

1.  They  were  a  people  called  out  (of  Egypt)  by 
God  himself  Acts  xiii.  17 :  Ex.  vi.  6 :  xii.  31 :  Pent. 
iv.  33-35. 

2.  They  were  all  baptized.  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2.  "  AU 
our  fathers  were  under  the  cloudy  and  all  passed  thrc^ 


46 

the  sen,  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses."  Ex.  xiv, 
21,22:   Num.  xxxiii.  8. 

(I.)  The  subjects  of  baptism,  Ex.  xii.  37  ;  "Six 
hundred  thousand  on  foot  that  were  men,  besides  chil- 
dren." This  was  pedobaptisra,  for  the  cono^regatioQ 
consisted  of  men.  women  and  children.  Ex.  xv.  20 : 
Lev.  xxvii.  5 :  Num.  xxx.  3. 

(2.)  The  mode  ;  they  VzD,  dipped  their  bodies  in 
water.  2  Kings  v.  14.  They  T;72D,  poured  out  ashes^ 
Lev.  iv.  12,  and  ?T)3,  sprinkled  with  blood  Lev.xvi.  14. 

3.  They  had  the  passover  ;  Ex.  xii.  2 — 27  ;  and  as 
this  Jewish  pedobaptist  church  was  a  type,  Col.  ii.  17: 
Heb.  viii.  .5,  of  the  church  of  God,  Acts  xx.  28:  I  Tim. 
iii.  5,  God  aave  them  the  passover  before  their  formal 
organization,  as  he  did  the  eucharist  to  the  church  of 
God  before  its  formal  organization.  Matt,  xx  vi.  26 — 30. 

4.  They  entered  into  a  church  covenant  with  God 
and  each  other.  Ex.  xxiv.  7—8 :  Gal.  iv.  24,  25. 

.5.  They  had  the  oracles  of  God.  or  Bible  given  to 
them.  J^uke  xxiv.  27:  Rom.  iii.  2:  Ex.  xvii.  14: 
xxiv.  4. 

G.  God  now  gave  them  a  sanctuary.  Ex.  xxv.  S, 
he  commanded  it  to  be  made,  and  xxxix.  40—43 :  xL 
S3 — 38,  it  was  finished. 

7.  God  gave  them  priests  and  elders.  Ex.  28,  29. 

8.  God  gave  them  a  Sabbath.  Gen.  ii.  2,  3,  God 
made  a  Sabbath  for  himself;  but  we  have  no  scriptu- 
ral evidence  that  the  Jews  ever  had  a  Sabbath  till  in 
the  wilderness,  Ex.  xvi.  23 — 25  ;  for  Pharaoh  knew 
neither  God  nor  Sabbath,  Ex.  v.  2,  nor  did  the  Jews 
as  a  nation  till  they  left  Egypt. 

9.  They  received  a  form  of  church  discipline,  and 
began  to  practice  it.  Ex.  chapters  20,  21,  22,  (fee. 

10.  Here  also  they  began  singing;  for  we  have  no 
account  of  it  till  at  Ex.  xv.  21,  after  they  had  crossed 
the  Red  Sea. 

11.  The  word  bnp,  which  Stephen  rendered  ixxXtTutJx^ 


47 

!  Acts  vii.  38,  and  King-  James  rendered  church,  is  never 
i  used  with  reference  to  Abraham's  posterity,  till  the  Mo- 
saic organization,   Ex.  xii.  6,  prospectively,  and  Ex. 
Xxix.  10,  with  reference  to  the  body  existing. 

12.  This  Mosaic  organization  is  called  the  chnrch 
by  our  version  of  the  Scriptures,  Acts  vii.  38.  So  we 
are  not  left  to  name  it;  and  at  Numbers  xii.  7,  it  ia 
called  the  house  of  God ;  and  at  Heb.  iii.  2.  it  is  call- 
ed the  house  of  Moses.  Hence  this  church,  house  of 
God,  and  house  of  Moses,  is  all  one  thing,  and  its  or- 
ganization agrees  with  what  pedobaptistscall  a  church. 
See  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  p.  347. 

13.  The  religion  taught  and  practiced  by  the 
Scribes,  Pharisees,  and  Jadaizing  teachers,  in  Christ's 
time,  was  precisely  that  of  Moses  ;  und  Luke  xvi.  29 
— 31,  father  Abraham,  from  heaven,  lays  no  claim  to 
it,  but  calls  the  whole  dispensation  '•^  Moses  and  ths 
prophets ^'^  Mat.  xxiii.  2,  the  Scribes  and  Phnriseea 
set  in  [not  Abraham's,  but]  Moseses  seat.  John  ix. 
23,  "  we  are  [not  Abraham's,  but]  Moses's  disciples.** 
Acts  XV.  21,  *' For  Moses  of  old  tiujc  hath  in  every 
city  them  that  preach  him."  Gal.  iii,  24,  "  Where- 
fore the  law  is  o:jr  nia5uyjiyo;y  teacher^  or  schoolmas- 
ter, [to  brino^  us]  unto  Christ."  Rom.  ii.  17:  ix.  32: 
John  i.  17:   vii.  19. 

14.  Modern  pedobaptists,  especially  presbyterians, 
say  they  are  the  same  church  witli  the  above,  organ- 
ized under  the  same  coveruint,  maintuining  the  same 
faith  and  practices,  excepting  some  of  the  non-essen- 
tial externals.  Therefore,  Jadalsm  ;uid  pcdobaptist 
religion,  are  two  successive  dispensations  of  the  samo 
religion. 

Testimony  of  pedobaptists.  Mr.  Cowles,  '•  7'h.e  Si- 
nai covennnt  was  the  constitiitio7i  of  the  Jewish  church, 
until  the  death  of  Christ." — Essay  on  Baplisw,^  p.  12. 

Mr.  Sawyer  says,  "  The  institution  of  baptism  has 
existed  from  the  time  of  Moses, The  Mosaic  bap- 


48 

tlsms  were  administered  to  the  disciples  of  Most s^  in- 
tluding^    till   after  the  cruciiixion,  those  of  John  and 

Christ. He  (John)  did   not,  however,  adopt  «-\  rite 

entirely  new,   but  apphed  one  that   already  existed^ 

and    was  in    high   repute  among  the  Jews. From 

the  fact  that  children  were  at  that  time  the  snljectsof 
the  Mosaic  baptism, The  promise  of  the  divine  fa- 
vor to  those  who  hear  the  gospel  is  eqnall}?^  extensive 

with  that  which  was  made  under  the  law. It  [i.  e. 

Mr.  Sawyer'c>  pedobaptist  church]  was  organized  with- 
in  the  Jewish  church,  and  contmued  to  be  a  branch  of 

it,  &,c. Judaism  and  Chrisdanili/,  therefore,  aro 

two  successive  dispensations  of  the  sa/ne  religion.'''* — 
Critical  Dissertation^  pp.  I,  2,  7.  13,  14. 

From  the  above  it  is  obvious  that  before  the  cove- 
nant of  Moses  the  Jews  had  no  church.  Melchisedec 
was  a  g(^ntile  priest  at  Salem,  Gen.  xiv.  18  :  Heb.  vii.  1. 
Pharao'i  had  pagan  priests,  Gen.  xlvii.  22.  'Tfie  Mid- 
ianites  hud  priests,  Ex.  ii.  16. ;  but  the  Jeus  had  no 
priests,  no  sanctuary,  no  oracles,  no  Sabhalh,  nor  any 
of  the  above  named  essentials  of  a  church,  (ilU.rgan- 
ized  at  Sinai.  That  there  were  believers  scattered 
among  the  Jews,  is  true.  And  so  ihcre  were  jiri^ong 
other  naiinns  at  the  same  time,  and  long  before  the 
birth  or  beinir  of  Abi'aham  or  the  Jews.  But  what 
we  say  i'^,  that  God  never  organized  a  body  of  people 
which  h(;  called  a  churcli,  nnlil  the  Jews  leil  Egypt. 
Now  remove  from  the  Park  street  C^hurch,  1.  i\\\  her 
called;  2.  her  bapiism,  snl)jects  and  modes  ;  3.  her 
passover,  or  Lord's  supper ;  4.  her  church  covenant 
and  anw'J.^s  of  f.iith  ;  5.  her  or;icles,  or  Bible;  6.  her 
sanciUH- y  ;  7.  her  priest  and  elders;  8.  her  Sal)balh  j  - 
9.  her  discipline ;  10,  her  singing;  11.  her  doclrines 
and  practices,  tausfht  by  the  written  word  of  God  ;  12. 
the  chmcii  ;  and  then  how  much  of  a  church  would 
Mr.  S.iwyer  have  left?  An.swer.  Just  as  much  as 
the  Jews  had  before  the  Mosaic  covenant. 


49 


CHAPTER   III. 
THE   CHURCH. 

SECTION     I  . 

The  Church  of  God. 

The  word  church  is  not  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  but  once  in  the  New  Testament  with  refer- 
ence to  the  Oldj  Acts  vii.  38,  "  This  is  he  who  was  in 
the  assembly  in  the  wilderness.  I  follow  Beza  He- 
insius  and  the  Prussian  translators  in  rendering  exxh- 
«r«a,  assembly^  as  our  translators  do,  (Acts  19,)  because 
I  am  persuaded  it  refers  not  in  the  general  to  their  be- 
ing incorporated  into  one  church,  in  the  appropriate 
sense  of  that  word,  but  to  their  being  assembled  round 
ihe  mountain  on  the  solemn  day  when  the  law  was 
given.   Ex.  xix.  17." — Doddridge's  Expos.   Note. 

The  word  church  is  very  indefinite  without  an  ad- 
jective. Hence  we  say  the  brick  church,  the  white 
church,  the  Baptist  church,  the  church  of  England, 
<fec.  So  with  the  enxXT^uia^  concio,  &c.  of  other  lan- 
guages. In  the  Bible  it  means  1.  simply  a  convoca- 
tion of  people,  of  any  character,  for  any  purpose,  good 
or  bad.  Acts  vii.  38:  xix.  32,  39,  41.  2.  When 
pointed  out  by  the  connection  of  its  history,  or  by  ad- 
jectives to  that  effect,  it  means  a  number  of  Christ's 
disciples,  jointly  believing  and  practicing  his  revealed 
will,  as  at  Acts  xx.  28,  "  Feed  the  Church  of  God.*' 
1  Cor.  i.  2:  x.  32  :  xi.  22 :  xv.  9:  Gal.  i.  13  :  1  Tim. 
iii.  5:  Mat.  xvi.  18:  Acts  ii.  47:  Eph.  iii.  10:  v. 
24.  3.  In  some  few  instances  it  refers  to  all  of  the  re- 
deemed, as  at  Eph.  v.  25—33:  Col.  i.  18—24:  but 
those  theological  terms,  church  militant,  church  tri- 
umphant, mystical  church,  &c.,  are  not  found  in  the 
Bible,  and  only  tend  to  confuse  and  lead  the  mind 
•astray.  The  words  kingdom,  kingdom  of  God,  king- 
5 


50 

dom  of  heaven,  &c.,  have  different  meanings.  Sorne^ 
times  they  refer  to  heaven,  as  at  Mat.  xiii.  43  :  Mark 
X.  14 :  1  Cor.  xv.  50 :  and  sometimes  they  mean  the 
church  of  God,  as  at  Dan.  ii.  44:  vii.  22:  Mat.  iii.  2  : 
Luke  xii.  32 ;  and  at  other  times  they  refer  to  Christ 
and  his  disciples  on  earth,  without  any  reference  to 
their  organization  as  a  church,  and  are  thus  often  us- 
ed with  reference  to  them  before  the  church  of  God 
had  its  visible  organization.  Mat.  xi.  12 :  xii.  28  : 
xxiii.  13:  Luke  xi.  20:  xvii.  2L 

In  further  noticing  the  Church  of  God,  I  shall 
speak, — 

1.  Of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Head^  Priest  and  King. 
It  is  beyond  the  limits  and  design  of  this  work  to  no- 
tice the  supreme  divinity  and  glorious  attributes  of  our 
common  Savior.  I  only  call  your  attention  to  Jesus 
at  this  time,  to  correct  one  gross  error  which  pedobap- 
tists  have  published  ;  i.  e.  that  he  was  a  Jewish  priest, 
and  was  therefore  baptized  at  the  age  of  30,  to  in- 
duct him  into  that  office;  affirming  that  this  was  the 
age  at  which  the  Jewish  priests  were  set  apart  to 
their  work.  BiU  the  Scriptures  declare  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  not  a  Jewish  priest,  Heb.  vii.  11,  12,  but 
a  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec,  Heb.  v.  6 — 10. 
Only  three  of  the  sacred  penmen  speak  of  Melchise- 
-i^-Oj  viz :  Moses,  David  and  Paul.  At  Gen.  xiv.  18, 
when  Abraham  returned  from  the  battle  with  Chedor- 
laomer,  *'  Melchisedec,  king  of  Salem,  brought  forth 
bread  and  wine ;  and  he  was  the  priest  of  the  Most 
High  God."  Here  we  have  the  time  when  he  lived  : 
in  Abraham'' s  da^^  1911  before  Christ ;  and  his  place 
of  residence  and  temporal  office,  king  of  Salem ; 
his  spiritual  office,  priest  of  the  Most  High  God. 

Thus  we  find  that  God  had  an  established  priest- 
hood 3700  years  since,  and  at  least  420  years  before 
the*  Aaronic  priesthood  began.  1490  years  before 
Christ,  God  established  the  Jewish  priesthood.     Aaro« 


51 

was  high  priest,  and  his  sons  subordinates,  Lev. 
viii.  From  this  time  there  wa^  a  succession  of  priests 
and  high  priests  among  the  Jews.  There  was  also 
another  order  of  officers  called  LeviteSj  whose  duty 
it  was  to  serve  as  burden  bearers  in  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation.  Num.  i.  50— .^4.  They  were  to  be- 
gin an  apprenticeship  at  the  age  of  25  years,  Num. 
viii.  24,  and  be  fully  inducted  at  the  age  of  30,  Num. 
iv.  23,  and  continue  in  office  to  the  age  of  50,  and  no 
longer.  Num.  iv.  23 :  viii.  25.  This  law  belonged 
exclusively/  to  the  Levites ;  for  Aaron  was  made  a 
priest  at  the  age  83,  Ex.  vii.  7,  and  officiated  till  he 
died  at  the  age  of  123.  Num.  xxxiii.  39. 

Thus  we  could  show  you  from  Scripture  that  Ele- 
azer,  Pkineasj  and  all  the  priests  successively,  did 
not  begin  at  the  age  of  30,  or  leave  at  50.  Hence, 
those  who  say  that  Jesus  was  baptized  at  the  age  of 
SO  to  consecrate  him  to  a  Jewish  office,  make  him  a 
mere  Leoite — a  servant  and  burden-bearer  of  the  con- 
gregation. While  the  Aaronic  priesthood  was  in  its 
glory,  their  royal  prophet,  David,  said,  Psa.  ex.  4, 
*^  The  Lord  hath  sworn,  and  will  not  repent,  thou  art 
a  priest  forever,  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec."  This 
is  the  second  place  where  Melchisedec  is  spoken  of  in 
the  Bible,  and  evidently  refers  to  what  Christ  should 
be  in  his  priesthood.  The  third  and  last  who  speaks 
of  Melchisedec  is  Paul,  at  Hebrews  v.  6 — 10 :  vi.  20 : 
vii.  1,  2,  10,  11,  15,  17,  21.  Paul's  argument  in 
these  three  chapters  is  based  upon  the  fact  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  not  a  Jewish  priest,  but  of  an  order  which 
God  established  nearly  400  years  before  Moses  or  Aa- 
ron had  birth  or  being.  It  is  true  that  our  Savior 
was  a  Jew,  John  iv.  22,  and  attended  to  all  the  cer- 
emonies of  the  Mosaic  religion  until  they  were  ab- 
rogated. But  when  he  entered  upon  his  public  min- 
istry he  left  the  Mosaic  religion,  and  was  ordained  a 
priest  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec's  gentile  priest- 


52 

hood,  Heb.  vii.  11 — 17 ;  and  if  he  had  wished  tc^ 
be  a  Jewish  priest,  their  law  forbade  it,  for  "he 
sprang  out  of  Judah,  of  which  tribe  Moses  spake 
nothing  concerning  the  priesthood."  Heb.  vii.  14, 
When  he  officiated  he  never  clothed  himself  with  their 
priestly  robes.  He  never  officiated  in  their  temple  as 
a  priest.  He  never  claimed  or  received  the  emolu- 
ments of  a  priest.  The  Jews  would  not  receive  hi& 
i\ew  kind  of  religion,  but  "  rejected  the  counsel  of 
God  against  themselves,  being  not  baptized"  with  the 
same  baptism  which  Christ  received.  Luke  vii.  30. 
The  whole  Jewish  priesthood  opposed  him,  and  he 
opposed  them,  and  frankly  and  constantly  told  them  if 
they  did  not  forsake  their  religion  and  embrace  his, 
Ihey  would  all  go  to  hell.  Mat.  xxiii.  13—33:  Luk-e 
xi.  44 — 49 :  John  viii.  21.  Christ  was  introduced 
into  the  priestly  office  without  any  of  the  Levitical  cer- 
emonies, but  xona  dvvafiiv  (by  virtue  of)  an  endless 
life;  and  the  oath  of  God.  Heb.  vii.  16—21.  When 
he  had  instituted  his  own  religion,  which  was  adapt- 
ed to  the  wants  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  he  abol- 
ished the  Jewish  priesthood,  Jer.  xxxi.  32:  Zech. 
xi.  10 — 14 :  2  Cor.  iii.  13  :  Eph.  ii.  15,  and  practiced 
exclusively  his  own,  which  was  after  the  order  of 
Melchisedec,  which  was  as  independent  of  the  Mo- 
saic when  Christ  officiated,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of 
Melchisedec,  400  years  before  Moses ;  and  this  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  God's  high  priest,  was  not  ordamed 
to  offer  Jewish  sacrifices,  but  to  offer  himself  as  the 
great  substance  of  which  the  Mosaic  sacrifices  were 
but  shadows,  and  has  established  a  new  and  more  ex- 
cellent ministry,  by  a  new  covenant  with  (not  the  old 
Jewish,  but)  the  church  of  Godj  Heb.  viii.  2 — 13,  which 
is  the  body  of  which  he  is  head.  Eph.  i.  20 — 23 :  iv, 
15  :  Col.  i.  18. 

2.    When  was  the  Church  of  God  set  up  ? 

The  Scriptures  must  determine   this.     We  shali 


63 

here  notice  the  prophecies  on  this  point,  Compare 
Deut.  xviii.  15,  with  Acts  iii.  22 — 24,  and  Psa.  ii.  6,  7, 
with  1  Tim.  vi.  15,  and  Isa.  vii.  14,  with  Mat.  i.  22, 
23,  and  Isa.  viii.  14—18,  with  Mat.  xi.  25 :  xxi.  42-- 
46 :  Heb.  ii.  11 — 18,  and  Isa.  x.  21,  with  Rom.  xi. 
5,  and  Isa.  xxviii.  16,  with  Eph.  ii.  20—22,  and  Isa. 
xl.  11,  with  John  x.  11 — 16,  and  Joel  ii.  28,  with  Acts 
ii.  14—47,  and  Micah  iv.  8,  with  Acts  ii.  39—41 ;  but 
the  most  conchisive  prophecy  is  at  Daniel  ii.  44,  45 : 
ix.  24 — 27.  The  passage  in  the  second  chapter  is  an 
interpretation  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream  by  the  inspi- 
ration of  God.  That  in  the  ninth  chapter  was  a  vision 
from  heaven,  explained  by  Gabriel.  Dan.  ix.  21 — 23» 
These  passages,  as  is  acknowledged  by  all  the 
Christian  world,  point  out  the  time  when  the  Church 
of  God  was  set  up.  To  give  an  explanation  of  them 
in  as  few  words  as  possible,  we  will  introduce  the 
views  of  Dr.  Adam  Clark.  ''  Dan.  ii.  44,  "  A  king- 
dom which  shall  never  be  destro^^ed.     The  extensive 

and  extending  empire  of  Christ. The  dream.      1. 

The  head  was  of  fine  gold.  2.  The  breast  and  arms 
of  silver.  3.  The  belly  and  thighs  of  brass.  4.  The 
legs  of  iron,  and  the  feet  and  toes  of  iron  and  clay. 
5.  A  stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain  without  hands, 
smites  the  image.  1.  The  head  of  gold.  This  was 
the  first  monarchy,  begun  by  Nimrod,  B.  C.  3233,  and 
ended  with  the  death  of  Belshazzar,  B.  C.  538.  2. 
The  breast  and  arms  of  silver.  This  was  the  Medo- 
Persian  empire,  which  properly  began  under  Darius 
the  Mede ;  allowing  him  to  be  the  same  with  Cyaxa- 
res,  the  son  of  Astyages,  who,  by  the  capture  of  Bab- 
ylon, B.  C.  538,  terminated  the  Chaldean  empire,  and 
on  the  death  of  his  father,  and  his  uncle  Cyaxares,  B. 
C.  536,  became  sole  governor  of  the  Medes  and  Per- 
sians. 3.  The  belly  and  thighs  of  brass,  is  the  Ma- 
cedonian or  Grecian  empire,  founded  by  Alexander  the 
Great,  B.  C  331.  After  his  death,  B.  C.  323,  th« 
5* 


54 

empire  became  divided  among  his  generals,  Cassan- 
der,  Lysiraachns,  Ptolemy  Lagus,  and  Seleucus  Nic- 
anor.  4.  The  legs  of  iron  and  feet  of  iron  and  clay. 
This  means  in  the  first  phice  the  kingdom  of  Lagi- 
dai,  in  Egypt ;  the  kingdom  of  Seleucus  in  Syria,  and 
secondly  the  Roman  empire,  which  was  properly  com- 
posed of  them.  Ptolemy  began  his  kingdom  in  Egypt 
B.  C.  312,  which  continued  to  B.  C.  30.  Seleucus 
began  his  kingdom  of  Syria  B.  C.  312,  which  contin- 
ued till  B.  C.  65.  The  former  was  overthrown  by 
Octavius,  the  latter  by  Pompey,  and  these  two  were 
absorbed  in  the  Roman  government.  5.  A  stone  cut 
out  of  the  mountain  v/ithout  hands.  Christ  is  often 
called  a  stone  in  the  Scriptures;  but,  this  stone  has 
reference  to  his  church,  which  is  represented  with 
Christ  the  rock  as  its  foundation  and  its  top  sione.  It 
strikes  the  feet  and  not  only  ruins  them,  but  the  brass, 
the  silver  and  the  gold.  And  this  stone  itself  be- 
comes a  great  mountain  and  fills  the  whole  earth." 

Dan.  ix.  24 — 27.  ''Seventy  weeks  are  determin- 
ed, &c.  The  above  70  weeks  or  490  years,  are  di- 
vided (ver.  25)  into  three  distinct  periods  ;  to  each  of 
which  particular  events  are  assigned.  To  the  first 
seven  weeks,  the  restoration  and  repairing:  of  Jerusa- 
lem are  referred,  and  so  long  were  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah  employed  ;  for  this  work  lasted  49  years  after 
the  commission  given  by  Artaxerxes.  The  second 
period  is  62  weeks  or  434  years,  at  the  end  of  which 
the  prophet  says  the  Messiah  should  come  ;  njaking  in 
all,  from  the  time  of  the  ^oing-  fonh  of  tho  command- 
ment of  Artaxerxes,  483  years.  3.  Jle  .shall  confirm 
the  covenant  with  many  for  one  week,  i.  e.  seven  years. 
This  confirmation  of  the  covenant  '/must  take  in  the 
ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  with  that  of  our  Lord. 
comprehendino^  the  time  of  seven  years,  during  the 
whole  of  which  he  might  be  said  to  confirm  or  ratify 
the  covenant  with  mankind.     These  seven  years  ad- 


55 

ded  to  the  483,  complete  the  490.  So  the  whok 
prophecy  has  been  fulfilled  to  the  very  letter."  Now 
if  this  prophecy  has  been  fulfilled  to  the  very  letter ^ 
then  the  kingdom  of  God  was  set  up  at  the  end  of 
these  70  weeks ;  or  when  Christ  ceased  to  confirm 
the  covenant,  which  he  continued  to  do  to  the  day  of 
his  ascension. 

Dr.  Scott  says,  "the  Jews  unanimously  agree,  that 
by  the  stone,  is  here  meant  the  Messiah's  Kingdom. 

The  stone  was  certainly  distinct  from  the  image, 

nay,  directly  opposite  to  it,  and  all  its  interests;  it 
must  mean  therefore,  the  kingdom  set  zip  by  the  power 
of  God  without  the  concurrence  of  human  policy  or 
force,  and  in  opposition  to  all  the  authority  and  com- 
bined efforts  of  the  princes  of  this  world,  {especially 
those  of  the  old  Jewish  church,)  and  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  was  evidently  intended." 

It  should  ever  be  remembered,  that  these  prophe^- 
cies  were  given  while  the  Jewish  church  was  stand- 
ing  ;  and  Daniel,  who  was  a  member  of  this 
church,  said  that  the  Babylonish  golden  kingdom, 
should  yield  to  the  Persian  silver  kingdom,  and  the 
Persian,  to  the  Grecian  brass  kino^dom,  and  the  Gre- 
cian, to  the  Roman  iron  kingdom;  and  in  the  days  of 
the  Roman  iron  Caesars,  the  God  of  heaven  should 
get  up  a  ?ieiD  spiritual  kingdom,  distinct  from  any  that 
had  existed  before.  But  the  old  Jewish  church  or 
kin:<dom  could  not  be  set  up  then,  for  it  had  already 
been  set  np,  and  existed  888  years  before  this  prophe- 
cy was  uttered.  But  here  was  a  new  klv.gdo??i,  a 
stone  cut  out  of  this  great  iron  mountain,  without 
hands,  and  put  in  motion  by  divine  power,  destined 
to  move,  and  roll,  till  it  should  break  in  pieces  a//  other 
kingdoms,  the  old  Jewish  kingdom  or  church  not  ex- 
cepted. 

Had  the  prophet  said  that  the  God  of  heaven  would 
remodel  the  old  Jewish  church,  and  given  her  Chris- 


66 

tian  ordinances  instead  of  Jewish  rites,  it  would  have 
met  pedobaptist  philosophy  ;  but  as  it  is,  these  proph- 
ecies are  fatal  to  their  whole  scheme.  But  prophe- 
cies do  not  cease  with  the  Old  Testament,  we  pass  to 
the  New.  At  Matt,  xvi  18,  the  Lord  promises  Peter, 
that  at  a  future  time,  he  would  build  his  church  on 
tliat  truth  which  he  confessed;  and  at  Matt,  xviii  15 
—18,  the  Savior  ^ave  his  disciples  a  rule  of  disciphne 
to  be  observed  after  the  master  of  the  house  had  left 
them.  These  are  the  only  instances  where  the  word 
church  is  used  in  the  Bible  till  at  Acts  ii.  But  the 
word  kingdom^  in  the  following  instances  evidently 
mean  the  same  thing.  John  the  Baptist  says.  Matt, 
iii.  2,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."     Matt.  iv. 

17,  Christ  the  great  prophet  repeats  the  same.  Matt. 
X.  7,  he  taught  his  apostles  to  say  the  same.  Now  no- 
tice the  expression  ;  not  that  the  kingdom  of  God  had 
come^  but  was  coming,  "  w  at  ha/idJ^  Malt.  xi.  11, 
John  the  Baptist,  though  greater  than  a  prophet,  was 
not  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  for  that  kingdom  had 
not  yet  been  set  up.  Matt.  xvi.  18,  -'upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  m,y  church."  Therefore  it  was  not  yet 
built.  Mark  ix.  1,  "  verily  1  say  unto  you  that  there 
be  some  of  them  that  stand  here  which  shall  not  taste 
death,  till  they  have  seen  the  kingdom  of  God  come 
with  power."  See  dlso  Matt.  xvi.  28 :  Mark  i.  15. 
Thus  the  great  prophet  taught  his  disciples  that  they 
had  not  yet  seen  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  it  should 
come  in  time  for  some  of  them  to  see  it  before  they 
tasted  death.  Luke  xii.  32,  "  Fear  not  little  flock,  for 
it  is  your  Father's  good  pleasure  to  give  you  the 
kingdom."     They  had  not  yet  recieved  it.    Lukexxii. 

18,  "I  will  not  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  the 
kingdom  of  God  shall  come."  Luke  xxii.  29 — 30, 
^i  xafojd  la  Tide  fiat  ifity,  (and  I  promise  to  you)  a  king- 
dom, as  my  Father  hath  appointed  unto  me,  that  y« 
may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom^  an«R 


57 

sit  on  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.'^ 
Matt.  xix.  28,  "  verily  I  say  unto  you  that  ye  which  have 
followed  me.  In  the  naUyylvia^a^  renovation  (or  great 
day  of  reformation,)  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on 
the  throne  of  his  glory  ;  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve 
thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  But  the 
captain  of  our  salvation,  and  the  chief  corner  sione  of 
the  building,  must  be  made  perfect  through  suffermg^ 
before  he  could  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory.  Heb.  ii 
10.  He  therefore  bowed  his  head  and  said  it  is  fin- 
ished ;  John  xix.  30.  Then  he  who  came  forth  from 
the  Father,  left  his  suffering,  serving  state,  and  went  to 
his  Father ;  John  xvi.  28  ;  and  was  seated  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  throne  of  the  majesty  in  the  heavens ; 
Heb.  viii.  1 ;  and  as  the  King  of  Kings,  his  head  was 
crowned  with  many  crowns;  Rev.  xix.  12;  having 
thus  ascended  on  high  and  led  captivity  captive,  h® 
recieved  gifts  for  men  ;  Psa.  Ixviii.  18  :  Eph.  i.  20 — 
22  :  Heb.  ii.  7  ;  and  poured  out  the  promise  of  the  Fa- 
ther upon  the  disciples  :  the  house  was  filled  with  the 
Holy  Spirit;  Acts  ii.  1,  2;  the  cloven  flame  crowned 
the  twelve  as  kings  and  priests  of  God;  Acts  ii.  3; 
and  they,  sitting  upon  Xwoiwe  spiritual  thrones  ^hegSiii 
to  pronounce  sentences  of  truth  and  judgment  upon 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel ;  Acts  ii.  5 — 36.  In  this 
unparalleled  day  of  regeneration,  we  find  3C00  Jewish 
church  members  not  only  regenerated,  but  baptized  and 
added,  not  to  the  old  Mosaic  congregation,  to  which 
they  formerly  belonged,  but  to  the  church  ;  Acts  ii.  41 — 
47.  Here,  (and  not  before  this,)  we  find  the  church  of 
God  spoken  of  as  an  existing  body ;  here  the  disciples. 
sat,  and  ate^  and  drank,  at  his  table  in  his  kingdom^ 
while  the  Son  of  Man  sat  on  the  throne  of  his  glory.  Be- 
fore the  Lord  ascended  to  the  throne  of  his  glory,  he 
assembled  his  apostles.  Acts  i.  4,  and  commanded  them 
to  remain  at  Jerusalem  until  they  should  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,  Acts  i.  8.      The  81  Apostles,  eleven  of 


68 

whom  were  appointed  Matt.  x.  1 — 5,  and  the  other  70, 
Luke  X.  1,  beheld  the  Lord  as  he  ascended,  and  a  cloud 
recieved  him  out  of  their  sight.  These  returning  to 
Jerusalem  with  39  others,  began  a  prayer  meeting 
which  continued  to  the  Pentecost.  Acts  i.  14.  Daring 
this  8  days  meeting  we  find  something  like  a  church 
in  embryo  ;  these  120  disciples  having  all  been  bap- 
tized by  John  the  Baptist,  Acts  i.  21,  22,  had  their 
names  registered.  Acts  i.  15,  and  by  a  vote  of  that 
body,  numbered  Matthias  among  the  twelve.  Acts  i.  26. 
In  this  unfinished  state  their  church  rested  till  the 
next  blessed  morning,when  their  kingjfromthe  throne  of 
his  glory,  poured  upon  them  the  promise  of  the  Father, 
not  only  to  sanction  what  they  had  done,  but  to  guide 
Ihem  in  completing  their  organization.  They  were 
Koon  made  the  instruments  of  converting  3000  Jews,  de- 
vout men. (not  infants,)  and  before  the  day  was  past  they 
had  a  church  of  3120  baptized  believers.  It  is  thus  evi- 
dent that  the  God  of  heaven  did  set  up  his  kingdom 
{not  in  the  days  of  Moses  or  Abraham,  but)  in  the  days 
of  the  Caesars,  and  gave  it  to  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High.  Dan.  vii.  18.  From  this  time  there  were  ad- 
ded to  this  church,  daily,  such  as  should  be  saved. 
Acts  ii.  47.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  500  brethren, 
I  Cor.  XV.  6,  and  the  multitude  of  others  who  had 
been  baptized  from  time  to  time,  were  at  first  consti- 
tuted members  of  this  church  ;  but  it  is  probable  they 
were  brought  in  among  the  daily  additions.  Acts  ii. 
47.  At  Acts  vi.  5,  6.  this  church  appoints  her  dea^ 
cons  ;  and  this  is  the  first  place  where  the  Bible  speaks 
of  such  a  class  of  officers  :  and  a,  solid  reason  for  which 
is,  that  before  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  there  was  no 
church  of  God  for  deacons  to  officiate  in.  And,  it  is 
also  evident  that  this  church  remained  for  some  time 
the  alone  organization  of  the  kind ;  for  when  Paul 
was  converted  and  baptized,  at  Damascus,  he  traveled 
to  Jerusalem  to  join  himself  to  tho  church.     But  this 


59 

cautious  body  would  not  receive  him  on  the  relation 
of  his  own  experience,  till  they  had  full  testimony 
from  the  brethren  that  he  was  truly  converted,  Acts 
ix.  26,  27;  and  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  other 
church  until  after  the  disciples  were  scattered  abroad 
upon  the  persecution  that  arose  about  Stephen.  Acts 
xi.  19.  But  then  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  became  the 
ieed  of  the  church,  and  by  divine  appointment.  Matt. 
Xxviii.  19.  20,  churches  were  planted  in  many  places. 

"  As  to  his  kingdom,  he  took  possession  when  the 
Lord  said  unto  him,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 
Christ,  as  the  Son  of  God,  was  ever  at  God's  right 
hand,  equal  to  him  in  might  and  majesty  ;  but,  as 
man,  was  exalted  to  honor,  not  before  his  glorious  as- 
cension. Acts  ii.  34 :  Eph.  i.  20."— Z^r.  Clark*s  An- 
alysis of  ]  10/^  Psalm. 

"After  the  death  of  Jesus,  a  great  number  of  his 
disciples  collected  at  Jerusalem,  celebrated  there  to- 
gether, and  in  his  name,  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  and 
thus  formed  thejirsi  community  oi  Christians  which 
had  taken  place." —  VillerSj  on  the  Reformation^  page 
174. 

"Now,  indeed,  was  formed  acommunity of  the  dis- 
ciples which  was  called  a  church." — Dr.  CampbelVs 
Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History.     Lee.  2. 

"Our  Savior,  first  speaking  of  it,  mentions  it  as 
that  which  then  was  not,  but  afterwards  was  to  be, 
when  he  spake  to  Peter,  And  upon  this  rock  /  will 
build  my  church.  But,  when  he  ascended  into  heav- 
en, and  the  Holy  Spirit  came  down  ;  when  Peter  was 
made  an  instrument  of  the  conversion  of  3000  souls^ 
which  were  added  to  the  former  disciples,  then  there 
was  a  church.  For,  after  that,  we  read,  the  Lord 
added  to  the  church  daily." — Dr,  Pier  sons  ^  on  ths 
Creed. 


60 


SECTION     II 


3^e  Jewish  Church  and  Church  of  God  not  am 
and  the  same. 

Wm.  T.  Hamilton  says,  "  The  sameness  of  the 
ehurch  under  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament economy  is  a  vital  pointy  it  is  indeed  the  turn- 
ing point oi  the  whole  controversy." — Essay  on  Bap- 
(ism,  p.  36. 

Mr.  Sawyer  asserts  their  identity  on  pp,  12,  13^ 
14,  15  ;  but  this  assertion  is  not  only  a  logical  but  a 
theological  error.  However  this  question  may  be 
treated  in  this  age,  it  is  evident  that  Christ  and  the 
apostles  never  did  attempt  to  prove  Judaism  and 
Christianity  to  be  one.  The  question  before  us  is  not 
can  we  find  a  society  which  resembles  the  Jews  or 
Mahomedans?  but  is  the  Jewish  church  and  the 
church  of  God  the  same  ? 

1.  The  Jewish  church  was  a  type  of  the  church 
of  God.  "  Then  verily  the  first  covenant  had  also 
ordinances  of  divine  service  and  a  worldly  sanctuary, 
which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks  and  divers 
washings,  and  carnal  ordinances  imposed  on  them 
until  the  time  of  reformation." — Heb.  ix.  1 — 10.  *'For 
the  law  having  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  and 
not  the  very  image  of  the  things,"  (fee. — Heb.  x.  1. 
1.  "  There  were  typical  persons,  as  Adam,  Abel,  Enoch, 
Abraham,  <fec.  2.  Typical  places,  as  Canaan,  Zion. 
the  Temple,  <fec.  3.  Typical  classes  of  persons,  us 
Israelites,  (fee.  4.  Typical  utensils,  as  the  Ark,  Shew 
Bread,  Candlesticks,  (fee.  5.  Typical  offerings.  6, 
Typical  seasons.  7.  Typical  purifications,  (fee." 
Browne's  Bible  Dictionary. 

*'  I  would  understand  it  not  merely  as  if  he  had 
said  that  this  similitude  of  comparison  may  be  prop- 
erly used  in  this  present  time,  as  to  the  temple  of  Je- 
rusalemt  which  has  its  holy  of  holies,  as  the  Mosaic 


61 

tmhernacle  had ;  but  that  the  constitution  before  de- 
scribed was  a  figurative  representation  of  the  Chris- 
tian Dispensation." — Doddridge^ s  Expos.    Heb.  ix.  9. 

"That  nation  was  a  typical  nation.  There  was 
then,  literally,  a  land  that  was  the  dwelling  place  of 
God,  which  was  a  type  of  heaven,  the  true  dwelling 
place  of  God,  and  an  external  city  of  God,  which 
was  a  type  of  the  spiritual  city  of  God.  and  an  exter- 
nal temple  of  God,  which  was  a  type  of  his  spiritual 
temple.  So  there  was  an  external  people  and  fam- 
ily of  God^  by  carnal  generation^  which  was  a  type 
of  his  spiritual  progeny  ;  and  the  covenant  by  which 
they  were  made  a  people  of  God,  was  a  type  of 
the  covenant  of  grace." — Fresident  Edvcrd^s  inqui- 
ry into  the  qualifications  for  communion.,  page  SS. 

Now  when  pedobaptists  have  identified  a  substance 
»ind  its  shadow — a  type  and  its  antitype — they  will  have 
identified  the  two  churches,  and  not  before.  They 
can  find  neither  precept  or  example  for  infant  church 
membership;  therefore  they  undertake  to  make  out  a 
warrant  for  tlieir  practice  by  calling  the  whole  Jew- 
ish nation  a  church,  and  because  there  were  infants 
in  that  nation,  and  God  (as  they  say)  has  not  forbid- 
den infant  baptism,  it  is  rioht  to  practice  it.  But 
why  not  carry  out  this  reasoning,  and  make  it  our  du- 
ty to  abstain  from,  and  practice  all,  that  the  Jews  did, 
if  not  expressly  tautrht  otherwise  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment? Why  do  pedobiptists  eat  swines'  fiesh  ?  Lev, 
xi.  7 :  Isa.  Ixv.  4,  and  refuse  to  take  the  brother's 
widow?  Matt.  xxii.  24.  Why  do  they  keep  company 
with  any  but  of  their  own  church  ?  Acts  x.  28.  Why 
do  they  not  continue  all  the  Jewish  feasts,  sacrifices, 
Ac.  &,c.  ? 

Again.     1.     The  Jews  had  an  High  Priest,  there 

fore  W3  must  have  a  Pope.     2.  This   High  Priest  by 

Urim  and  Thummin,  was  infallible ;     so    our  Pope 

must  be.     3.  The  number  seven  was  sacred^  thus : 

6 


62 

seventh  day,  seven  clean  beasts,  <kc. ;  therefore  w« 
must  have  seven  sacred  things  or  sacranaents.  4.  Th© 
Jews  united  their  civil  and  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  one 
code  of  laws ;  so  we  must  submit  to  the  Cambridge 
and  Saybrook  platforms,  which  are  after  this  model, 
5.  As  the  Jewish  government  had  a  right  to  tax  all 
the  people  one  tenth  for  the  support  of  the  clergy, 
ice. ;  so  priests  now  should  have  power  not  only  to 
tax  and  distress  indiscriminately,  but  also  to  impris- 
on,  whip,  banish  or  kill  Quakers.  Baptists,  witches 
and  other  heretics.  6.  We  ought  to  sprinkle  water 
on  both  male  and  female,  at  any  age  when  conven- 
ient, (pedobaptists  say,)  because  the  Jews  circumcis- 
ed their  males  at  the  age  of  eight  days,  and  the  Nev 
Testament  has-  not  forbidden  it.  I  wish  to  see  pe- 
dobaptists consistent  with  themselves :  for,  while 
they  exert  every  power  to  prove  that  Christ  baptized 
infants,  and  yet  fail,  it  is  obvious  that  they  have  his 
example  for  several  of  the  Mosaic  customs,  which 
they  utterly  neglect. 

Mr.  Sawyer  has  found  eight  points  of  similarity  be- 
tween the  nation  of  the  Jews  and  the  church  ;  he,  there- 
fore, boldly  asserts  their  identity.  But  I  will  pledi^e  my- 
self to  find  fifty  stronger  similarities  between  a  mouse 
and  a  horse.  Thus  :  the  one  has  flesh,  blood,  bones, 
Rkin.  hair,  head,  two  eyes,  two  ears,  four  legs, — eats 
oats,  drinks  water,  &c.  &c., — is  called  beast,  brute, 
creature,  animal,  &c. ;  all  of  which  is  true  of  the 
other.  Is  a  mouse,  therefore,  a  horse?  "  Is  every 
thing  which  is  like  another  in  any  respect,  to  be  called 
ny  the  same  name?  Is  a  man  an  elephant,  because 
both  have  the  faculties  of  hearina:  and  seeing?"— 
President  Day  on  the  Will,  page  130.  See  also 
Locke,  on  Identity  and  Diversity. 

Does  diversity  loose  its  power  of  destroying  identi- 
ty when  it  comes  in  contact  with  pedobaptism  ?  Ju- 
daism still  exists,  and  can  be  conipared  with   the 


63 

diurch  of  God  without  the  aid  of  history ;  and,  aw 
the  Jewish  synagogues  in  the  city  of  New  York,  &c. 
the  same  as  Christian  churches?  If  we  appeal  to 
the  Bible,  the  difference  is  equally  clear.  1.  Th« 
Jewish  Sabbath  was  the  seventh  day  ;  the  Christian  is 
the  first.  2.  Jews  reject  the  New  Testament  as  a 
dangerous  fable ;  we  receive  it  as  of  divine  inspiration. 
3.  If  a  Jew  believed  in  Christ,  he  was  cast  out  of  th« 
synagogue  as  a  heretic,  John  ix.  22 — 24  ;  but  we  ac- 
knowledge such  only  as  church  members.  4.  Jews 
required  neither  faith  or  repentance  for  admission  in- 
to their  church  ;  we  require  both.  5.  Jews  would 
not  and  do  not  receive  baptism  as  a  substitute  for  cir- 
cumcision ;  but  pedobaptists  do.  6.  Jews  did  and 
still  do  eat  the  passover  of  bread  and  meat;  Chris- 
tians do  not  observe  this  institution.  7.  The  Jews 
hold  their  traditions  more  sacred  than  the  laws  of 
Christ,  Mark  vii.  8,  9j  but  honest  Christians  "^iW 
yield  their  traditions  to  divine  revelation.  8.  The 
Jews  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ,  John  v.  vi.  vii. ; 
but  Christians  believe  him  divine.  9.  The  Jewish 
4:hurch  was  set  up  by  Moses,  Ex.  xix.  xxiv.  ;  the 
Christian  by  Jesus  Christ,  Acts  i.  ii.  10.  Jewish 
males  only  received  their  circumcision  ;  Christians  of 
both  sexes  receive  bap<ism.  11.  The  charter  of  the 
Jewish  church  was  annihilated  by  divine  authority  ; 
but  that  of  the  Christian  church  is  perpetual.  12. 
The  Jews  as  a  nation  and  by  the  authority  of  their 
Sandhedrim,  did  not  receive  Christ,  but  scandalized, 
persecuted  and  killed  both  him  and  his  followers. 
See  Matt.  xxi.  28:  xxvii.  22:  Luke  iv.  29:  xiii.  31: 
xxii.  2  :  John  v.  16 :  vii.  10—20  :  viii.  42—52  :  x. 
20,  &c. 

^' A  saying  of  Justin  Martyr  casts  some  light  on 

this.     He  asserts  that  the  Jews  not  only  cursed  them 

'  in  their  synagogueSj  but  they  sent  out  chosen   men 

isom  Jerusalem  to  acquaint  the  world,  and  particularly 


64 

the  Jews,  every  where,  that  the  Christians  were  aft 
atheistical  and  wicked  sect,  which  should  be  detested 
and  abhorred  by  all  mankind.  So  the  Jews  in  every 
place  persecuted  the  Christians,  and  show  truly  that 
they  are  rather  the  posterity  of  Hagar  than  of  Sarah." 
— Dr.  darkens  Comment. 

Dr.  LiGHTFOoT  makes  the  following  quotation 
from  the  writings  of  a  learned  Rabbi.  "In  the  days 
of  Rabban  Gamaliel  heretics  increased  in  Israel,  (by 
heretics  he  meaneth  those  that  turned  from  Judaism 
to  Christianity ^)  and  they  troubled  Israel  and  per- 
suaded them  to  turn  from  their  religion.  He  seeing 
this  to  be  a  matter  of  exceeding  great  consequence, 
more  than  any  thing  else,  stood  up,  he  and  his  Sand- 
hedrim,  and  appointed  a  prayer,  in  which  there  was 
a  petition  to  God  to  destroy  those  heretics ;  and  this 
he  set  among  the  common  prayers,  and  appointed  it 
to  be  in  every  man's  mouth,  so  that  they  daily  prayed 
against  Christians  and  Christianity."  On  this  Dr. 
Lightfoot  remarks :  "The  Jews  had  their  emissa- 
ries every  where  abroad,  that  to  the  uttermost  cried 
down  the  gospel,  preached  against  it,  went  about  to 
confute  it,  and  blasphemed  it,  and  Christ  that  gave  it. 
Of  this  there  is  testimony  abundant  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament.  It  is  needless  to  instance  their  derision 

and  detestation  of  Christ  and  Christianity,  their  blas- 
phemy against  his  blessed  name,  their  hatred  and 
mischievousness  against  the  professors  of  it.  Their 
writings  proclaim  their  impiety.  They  had  continu- 
al opposings  among  themselves,  yet  they  all  agreed ^ 
like  Simeon  and  Levi,  brethren  in  evil,  to  oppose,  vil- 
ify, and  blaspheme  the  gospel." — Lightfoofs  Works^ 
Vol.  1,  pp.  289,  371. 

An  attempt  to  identify  the  Jews  and  the  church  of 
God,  must  arise  from  ignorance  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, or  from  a  wilful  determination  to  pervert  the 
truth,  and  is  looked  upon  by  intelligent  men  as  one  of 


65 

the  w^eakest  of  pedobaptist  sophisms.  It  makes  the 
Bible  account  of  Paul's  conversion,  the  pentecostal 
and  other  reformations,  to  be  simply  proselyting  mem- 
bers from  one  church  to  another  of  the  same  denomi- 
nation ;  and  our  faith,  hope,  charity,  baptism  and  TiOrd's 
Supper,  to  be  only  the  Jewish  circumcision,  washings, 
altars,  priests,  sacrifices,  vestments,  views  and  actions 
continued,  But  it  is  evident  that  the  old  Mosaic 
church  covenant  or  constitution,  and  consequently  all 
that  it  demanded  and  promised,  was  not  carried  into 
the  church  of  God,  but  abolished.  Jer.  xxxi.  31, 
32,  "  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I 
will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel 
and  with  the  house  of  Judah ;  not  according  to  the 
covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  in  the  day 
that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt."  See  Heb.  viii.  6—13.  At  Zee. 
xi.  10,  11,  we  are  informed  that  God  broke  his  cove- 
nant which  he  had  made  with  all  the  people  ;  ver.  13 
it  was  done  when  they  weighed  thirty  pieces  of  sil- 
yer  for  the  price  of  the  Shepherd  ;  ver.  14,  and  at 
this  time  the  bond  of  brotherhood  between  Judah  and 
Israel  was  broken  and  destroyed ;  vers.  15,  16,  after 
all  this  was  done,  then  the  great  Shepherd  took  his 
gathering  instrument,  and  gathered  his  Jlock  ;  not  the 
unconverted  Jews,  but  his  sheep.  John  x.  11 — 18. 
But  the  Jews,  as  a  people,  would  not  hear  his  voice 
or  be  his  sheep ;  for  they  hated  the  Shepherd  and 
the  flock.  John  x.  26—31 :  Rom.  viii.  36—39.  Thus 
by  divine  authority,  the  Mosaic  church  covenant  was 
annihilated;  and  as  Dr.  M.  Henry  5^ays,  "Me 
Jews  tvere  unchurched"  and  the  apostle  could  say 
with  propriety,  Heb.  xiii.  10,  "  We  have  an  altar 
whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eut,  which  serve  the 
tabernade.^'^  While  the  pedobaptists  are  so  certain 
that  the  inspired  writers  are  silent  as  to  infant  church 
membership,  and  they  are  therefore  at  liberty  to  prac- 


66 

tice  what  is  not  forbidden^  (see  Mr.  Sawyer^  page 
2,)  we  will  select  one  more  divine  prohibition,  Gal. 
iv.  21 — 31.  Martin  Luther  says,  "  This  is  a  won- 
derful allegory.  Abraham  is  a  figure  of  God,  which 
had  two  sons  ;  that  is  t6  say,  two  sorts  of  people,  rep- 
resented by  Ishmael  and  Isaac.  These  two  are  born 
unto  him  by  Hagar  and  Sarah  ;  the  which  signify  the 
two  Testaments,  the  old  and  the  New.  Therefore 
Hagar,  the  bondmaid,  bringeth  forth  bond  servants. 
Ishmael  then  is  not  the  heir,  although  he  be  the  nat- 
ural son  of  Abraham,  but  reraaineth  a  bond  servant. 
As  Paul  a  little  before  made  Hagar  Sinai ;  so  now  of 
Jerusalem,  he  would  gladly  make  it  to  be  Sarah  ;  but 
he  dare  not,  neither  can  he  do  so,  but  is  compelled 
to  join  Jerusalem  to  mount  Sinai.  But  Jerusalem 
which  is  above,  that  is  to  say  the  spiritual  Jerusalem, 
is  Sarah  ;  that  true  lady  and  free  woman,  which  is 
the  mother  of  us  all,  and  gendereth  us  unto  liberty. 
Now  this  heavenly  Jerusalem,  which  is  above,  is  the 

CHURCH. The    Pope  hath  in   a  manner  quite 

overthrown  it,  and  made  the  church  subject  to  man's 
tradition  and  cer€?no)iies.'' — Luther  on  Galatians. 
It  would  be  well  for  the  church  of  God  if  the  Pope 
were  alone  in  this  matter.  With  Luther,  I  would 
say  this  is  a  wonderful  allegory. 

1.  The  law,  in  verse  21,  and  the  covenant  in  the  al- 
legory, is  one  and  the  same. 

2.  Abraham  had  two  wives,  Hagar  and  Sarah. 
These  represent  the  two  covenants,  verse  24. 

3.  Ishmael  and  Isaac  resemble  the  people  under 
these  two  covenants.  Ishmael  was  born  a  slave  ;  so 
the  old  covenant  Hagar,  or  the  Mosaic  covenant,  be- 
gat nothing  but  bondmen,  and  this  earthly  Jerusalem, 
i.  e.  the  Jews,  were  these  bondmen,  ver.  25.  But 
Isaac  resembles  the  children  of  the  new  covenant, 
who  are  Christ's  freemen,  and  the  Jerusalem  from 
above  is  the  church  of  God,  ver.  26, 


67 

4.  Ishmael  was  not  the  child  of  promise,  but  tha 
natural  branch  of  Abraham,  Rom.  xi.  24,  and  represent- 
ed the  literal  children  of  the  Jews,  the  constituents 
of  their  visible  church,  by  birthright  membership. 
But  Isaac,  who  was  the  child  of  promise,  represented 
the  members  of  the  church  of  God,  who  are  not 
born  church  members,  but  became  such  by  hhing 
born  as  Isaac  was,  bi/  faith  in  God's  promises,  and 
by  baptism. 

5.  As  the  children  of  the  deserted  woman,  Sarah, 
were  more  than  Hagar's,  who  had  the  husband,  so 
the  children  of  the  covenant  of  grace  and  church  of 
God,  are  to  be  more  numerous  than  the  bondmen  of 
the  old  Mosaic  covenant. 

6.  As  Ishmael,  who  was  the  child  of  the  flesh,  per- 
secuted Isaac,  who  was  born  after  the  spirit ;  even  so 
in  the  apostle's  day,  and  at  this  time  also,  do  those 
who  plead  for  church  membership  on  birthright,  and 
other  principles,  not  including  regeneration,  persecute 
and  try  to  pull  down  the  children  of  faith  and  sons  of 
the  new  covenant. 

7.  But  what  saith  the  Scriptures  7  Cast  out. 
Gen.  xxi.  10.  Here  is  positive  law.  Cast  out. 
Gal.  iv.  30.  This  does  not  look  like  silence  on  the 
part  of  the  inspired  writers.  Yes,  from  heaven  we 
have  the  law  :  Cast  out  the  bond  woman^  the  old 
covenant  Hagar,  which  is  the  constitution  of  the 
Jewish  church.  Nor  is  this  all ;  but  again,  cast  out 
also  the  son  of  Hagar,  i.  e.  all  the  children  of  this  cove- 
nant^ i7Tespective  of  age^  sexes^  sect  or  condition  ;  for 
the  God  of  heaven  has  said  once  and  again  that  these 
sons  of  this  bond  woman  shall  not  be  heirs  with 
THE  SONS  OF  thbJ  FREE  WOMAN.  This  is  an  unlim- 
ited, positive  prohibition,  which  forbids  admitting  any 
person  to  church  membership,  except  those  who  are 
born  of  the  Spirit.  And,  they  who  baptize,  or  other- 
wise admit  persons  to  church  membership  before  they 


68 

ean  give  evidence  of  their  conversion,  are  guilty,  not 
only  of  practicing  without  a  thus  saith  the  Lord,  but 
of  doing  that  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  which  God  has 
positively  forbidden.  Prohibitions  and  instructions  like 
the  above  are  found  in  a  numerous  class  of  texts,  but  I 
must  close  by  simply  referring:  you  to  a  few  of  them. 
John  viii.  33—37 :  Acts  iii.  22—26  :  Rom.  viii.  14, 
15:  ix.  6— 11:  Gal.  iii.  21— 29:  v.  1—4:  Heb.  xii. 
18-22 :  Rev.  iii.  12 :  xxi.  2—10 :  Mat.  xxviii.  16— 
20 :  Mark  xvi.  14—20  :  Luke  xxiv.  45—49. 


SECTIONIII. 

Having  briefly  noticed  the  church  of  God,  and 
shown  the  marked  difference  between  it  and  the 
Mosaic  church,  the  constitution  and  covenant  of 
which  was  the  law,  by  the  faith  and  deeds  of  which 
no  flesh  could  be  justified  ;  Rom.  iii.  20:  iv.  5:  vii. 
7  :  Gal.  ii.  16  :  iii.  10;  we  pass  to  notice  the  origin  of 
some  of  the  existing  denominations.  By  the  perse- 
cution at  Jerusalem,  Acts  xi.  19 — 26,  the  disciples 
were  scattered,  and  went  every  where  preaching  the 
word  and  planting  churches.  At  this  time  the  Ro- 
man empire  was  in  its  glory,  and  governed  not  only 
Palestine,  but  a  large  portion  of  the  world.  The  Ro- 
mans were  pagans,  and  their  religion  was  so  intimate- 
ly connected  with  their  government  that  the  progress 
of  the  gospel  alarmed  both  their  pagan  and  their  politi- 
cal fears.  It  is  probable  that  the  gospel  was  first  preach- 
ed in  the  city  of  Rome,  A.  D.  34  or  35,  and  a  church 
formed  there  soon  after  this  ;  for  Paul  in  his  epistle, 
Rom.  i.  8,  A.  D.  60,  speaks  of  them  as  a  church  gen- 
erally known.  The  management  of  the  Jews  was 
committed^  to  Roman  governors,  therefore  Caligula 
and  Claudius  suffered  them  to  persecute  Christians  by 
the   instrumentality  of  the  Jews.     But  when  Nero 


69 

came  to  the  throne,  A.  D.  64,  he  took  the  sword  into 
his  own  hand,  and  from  the  time  he  set  fire  to  the  city 
of  Rome  and  charged  it  to  the  Christians.  July  10,  A^ 
D.  64,  to  the  time  he  beheaded  Paul,  A.  D.  66,  and  fi- 
nally, up  to  the  time  of  his  death,  A.  D.  63,  he  continu- 
ed to  imprison  and  destroy  Christians.  Here  began 
the  pagan  persecuiio?i.  Passing  over  the  conduct  of 
Galba,  Otho,  Vitellius,  Vespasian  and  Titus,  in  the 
14lh  year  of  Domitian's  reign,  A.  D.  9-5,  we  find 
2iim  engaged  in  a  merciless  persecution,  in  which  the 
evangelist  John  was  banished  to  the  island  of  Patmos, 
where  he  wrote  the  Revelation.  The  short  reign  of 
Emperor  Nerva  was  mild,  but  when  Trajan  can3e  to 
the  throne,  A.  D.  98,  his  edicts  drenched  the  eartli 
with  Christian  blood  ;  and  Adrian,  although  petition- 
ed by  Quadratus.  Aristides  and  Serenus  Granianus, 
to  have  mercy  on  the  church,  made  its  condition  but 
little  better.  Durinof  the  reio-n  of  Antoninus  Pins 
and  Marcus  Antoninus,  i.  e.  from  A.  D.  142  to  A.  D. 
180,  there  weie  great  persecutions  in  Asia.  Here 
Polycarp,  the  pastor  at  Smyrna,  suffered  martyrdom, 
A.  D.  166.  Toward  the  close  of  the  rei.2n  of  iVl.  Art- 
toninus,  say  A.  D.  177,  the  persecution  began  in 
France;  Lyons,  Vienne  and  other  places  suffered  inhu- 
man tortures  and  bloodshed.  Passing  by  the  reigns  of 
Commodus,  Pertinax,  Julianus,  Niger  and  Aibinus, 
we  find  Severus,  A.  D.  202.  waging  war  with  Chrij&- 
tians  in  Africa ;  and,  soon  after,  Asia,  Egypt,  ami 
most  of  the  nations  in  Europe  were  fields  of  slaugh^ 
ter.  From  the  death  of  Severus,  A.  D.  211,  to  the 
reign  of  Decius,  the  church  had  a  little  rest ;  but  from 
A.  D.  250  to  the  close  of  the  Dioclesian  persecution, 
A.  D.  311,  the  church  was  hunted  and  killed  with 
greater  eagerness  than  the  worst  of  wild  beasts.  Th« 
mischief  done  in  this  persecution  will  only  be  known 
at  the  last  Judgment.  It  consisted  in  burning  the 
books  and  writings  of  the  church ;  in  banishing  and 


70 

killing,  indiscriminately,  men,  women  and  children, 
beyond  all  account.  Godeau,  a  French  writer,  says 
^at  not  less  than  17,000  were  put  to  death  in  on© 
month ;  and  within  one  year  150,000  were  slain  in 
Egypt,  besides  all  that  suffered  in  other  places. 

Thus  the  fair  churches  which  had  been  planted 
in  Palestine,  Egypt,  Greece,  Africa,  Italy,  France, 
England,  Spain  and  otlier  places,  were  scattered  by 
the  hand  of  its  enemy.  At  the  death  of  Constantius. 
A.  D.  305,  Constantine  became  Emperor  of  the  West, 
and  at  the  death  of  Maximinus  Galerius,  A.  D.  311, 
Maxentius  became  Emperor  of  the  East.  An  edict 
was  now  published  which  equally  tolerated  Christian- 
ity and  paganism.  Soon  after  this  a  civil  war  began 
between  the  two  Emperors,  in  which  Maxenlius  fell 
at  Rome,  A.  D.  312,  and  Constantine  became  the  sole 
governor  of  the  empire.  While  he  was  marching  hi« 
army  from  France  into  Italy,  he  profe^ssed  to  have  seen 
at  mid  day,  a  luminous  cross  in  the  sky,  with  this  in- 
ficription  on  it,  "fiy  this  conquer.''^  The  sight  so  affect- 
ed his  mind  that  it  resulted  in  his  conversion,  and  sooQ 
after  he  was  master  o(  Rome,  he  prohibited  paganism, 
and  used  every  laudable  means  to  gather  and  estab- 
lish the  churches.  Having  removed  the  seat  of  gov- 
ernment  to  Byzantium,  and  changed  its  name  to  Con- 
stantinople, he  there,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  opened  th© 
cJiurches  and  closed  the  pagan  temples.  He  assum- 
ed the  name  of  Bishop,  and  claimed  the  power  of 
controlling  and  regulating  all  the  temporalities  of  the 
church.  From  this  time  Constantine  continued  to 
use  his  property  and  every  power  to  defend,  enlarge^ 
and  enrich  the  church,  until  he  died.  May  22,  A.  D. 
237. 

His  church,  havinor  become  very  rich  and  fashion- 
able, their  pomp  and  preferments  soon  drew  multi- 
tudes of  unworthy  members  into  her  communion. 
Her  discipline  and  devotion  fled,  and  in  a  few  yeora 


71 

the  church  of  Rome  became  dogmatical,  insoleat,  anti 
a  mere  synagogue  of  Satan,  corrupt  in  faith,  and 
worse  in  practice  ;  they  not  only  descended  to  i\m 
level  of  the  ungodly  world,  but  even  practiced  par 
ganism  and  Judaism^  and  heaven-daring  sins  in  their 
nominal  holy  Catholic  Church. — Milner,  Jones,  Cam 
and  Moshiem, 

While  these  things  existed,  many  of  the  most  godlj 
members  withdrew  from  them,  and  established  purer 
churches,  or  lived  alone,  as  circumstances  dictated. 
During  the  long  and  bloody  pagan  oppression,  the 
spirit  o^ persecution  had  become  interwoven  with  the 
very  nature  of  the  Romans ;  but  as  Christianity 
had  become  th^  religion  of  the  nation,  they  found 
no  vent  for  this  principle,  until  a  violent  quarrel 
took  place  between  Milchiades,  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  Coecilianus,  Bishop  of  Carthage.  Many  minis^ 
ters  and  churches  took  sides  in  thiscontroversy ;  and.., 
finally  a  council  was  assembled  at  Aries,  in  France^ 
in  which  they  condemned  the  Carthagenians  and 
treated  them  accordingly.  Soon  after  this  another 
dispute  began  at  Alexandria  in  Egypt.  This  was 
the  beginning  of  the  Arian  controversy,  which  final- 
ly affected  nearly  all  Christendom.  A  council  was 
assembled  at  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  when  Arius  and  his 
followers  were  condemned,  excluded  and  analhema-^ 
tized,  which  resulted  in  a  division  of  the  church  at 
Alexandria,  and  many  others. 

From  that  time,  the  church  of  Rome  found  vent 
for  htiv  peculiar  spirit  of  persecution,  and  the  same 
gpirit  which  pagan  Rome  had  manifested  against 
Christians,  was  now  exhibited  by  Christian  Rome 
against,  not  only  Ariaus,  but  all  others  who  did  not 
fellowship  her  abominations.  Terlullian,  who  flour- 
ished from  A.  D.  194,  to  A.  D.  220,  separated  him- 
self frorii  the  pollutions  of  the  Romish  church  at  Cai- 
tliage.      And  Novatian,  a  man  of  great  learning  a»4 


72 

piety,  established  a  church  on  apostolic  principles,  in 
Rome,  A.  D.  251,  and  held  no  communion  with  the 
Judaised  and  paganised  catholics ;  his  followers  were 
called  cathari^  (i.  e.  puritans.)  This  church  became 
large,  and  not  only  attracted  the  persons  of  the  virtu- 
ous, but  the  persecutions  and  anathemas  of  lh6 
Catholics.  Thus  divisions  multiplied  until  A.  D. 
660,  when  a  body  of  pure  Christians  arose,  whom 
the  Romans  nicknamed  Paulicans  and  afterward 
Manichaeans,  &c.,  and  turned  upon  them  as  severe 
a  persecution  as  that  of  Dioclesian.  This  barbarous 
persecution  continued  until  after  what  is  called  the 
reformation.  The  first  pastors  or  bishops  of  Rome, 
lived  subject  to  the  government  of  the  empire,  and 
simply  officiated  as  ecclesiastical  teachers,  as  baptist 
ministers  do  now.  But  when  Constantine  was  con- 
verted and  assumed  the  name  of  Bisfiop,  and  took  the 
control  of  the  churches  in  his  empire,  he  appeared 
somethina:  like  a  Pope,  although  he  laid  no  claim  to 
the  gospel  ministry.  Sylvester,  who  was  pastor  of 
the  cliurch  of  Rome  from  A.  D.  313  to  335,  and  those 
who  succeeded  him  up  to  A.  D.  590,  made  no  preten- 
sions to  universal  bishopship.  A.  D.  5S8  the  church 
at  Constantinople  had  a  pastor  called  John  the  faster^ 
and  Pelagius  was  pastor  at  Rome  at  the  same  time. 
Pelagius  attempted  to  exercise  some  authority  over 
John  the  faster  ;  and  the  church  at  Constantinople, 
to  show  a  suitable  resentment,  called  a  council  and 
declared  .lohn  Universal  Bishop.  This  exas- 
perated Pelagius  and  his  party,  and  a  dreadful  quarrel 
ensued  ;  but  Pelagius  soon  died,  and  Gregory  the 
Great  succeeded  him,  A.  D.  590.  Gregory  took  not 
only  the  place  but  the  spirit  of  Pelagius.  He  wrote 
a  letter  to  Mauricius,  Emperor  of  Constantinople, 
setting  forth  the  blasphemous  wickedness  of  John's 
assuming  the  name  of  Universal  Bishop.  Mauricius 
paid   no  favorable  attention  to  Gregory's  letter,  and 


73 

the  result  was  that  the  anger,  pride  and  revenge  of 
the  church  of  Rome  lifted  Gregory  to  the  Papal 
Chair;  not  in  the  name  of  a  Pope,  but  in  spirit  and 
authority  he  was  equal  to  a  Pope.  Gregory  died  A. 
D.  604,  and  was  succeeded  by  a  weak  bishop,  named 
Sabinianus,  who  continued  but  one  year,  and  was 
succeeded  by  Boniface  III. 

In  A.  D.  602,  a  nobleman  of  Chalcedania,  named 
Phocas,  determined  to  murder  Mauricius,  Emperor  of 
Constantinople,  and  reign  in  his  place.  Assisted  by 
Boniface,  he  iiiiled  Mauricius,  his  six  sons  and  two 
daughters,  and  took  the  crown.  When  Phocas  was 
enthroned,  to  reward  Boniface  he  declared  him  Pope^ 
and  the  Church  of  Rome  the  head  of  all  other 
churches^  A.  D.  606.  Not  content  with  being  head 
of  the  Church,  the  Pope  soon  aspired  for  the  Empe- 
rorship. I  nA.  D.  732,  Gregory  III.  excommunicated 
Emperor  Leo,  Isaurin  of  Constantinople,  because  he 
opposed  image  worship.  Leo  fitted  out  a  fleet  to  seek 
redress  of  Gregory  by  force  of  arms  ;  but  Leo's  ships 
were  wrecked  in  the  Adriatic  sea,  and  in  this  hour  of. 
calamity  Gregory  seized  the  imperial  power,  and  com- 
menced acting,  in  all  respects,  as  the  sovereign  oi  the 
people. 

The  Pope  now  assum.ed  the  name  of  Sovereign 
Pontiff,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  Prince  over 
ALL  Nations  and  Kingdoms,  Master  of  the  Uni- 
versal World,  His  Holiness,  God  on  Earth, 
Light  of  the  World,  Most  High,  King  of  Kings 
AND  Lord  of  Lords,  Most  Holy  and  Most  Bless- 
ed, Lord  God  the  Pope  ! ! !  and  declared  that  Je- 
sus Christ  had  granted  a  twofold  power  to  the  church, 
i.  e.  the  spiritual  and  temporal  sword,  and  subjected 
the  whole  human  race  to  the  authority  of  the  Roman 
Pontiff, — and  whoever  dare  disbelieve  it  were  deem- 
ed heretic,  and  stood  excluded  from  all  jpossibiliti/ 
of  salvation-, — and  that  in  good  sense  and  judgment 
7 


74 

Christ  hath  given  to  Peter  and  consequently  to  the 
Pope,  the  power  of  making  that  to  be  sin  which  was 
no  sin,  and  that  which  was  sin  to  be  no  sin,  for  the 
Pope  holdeth  the  place  on  earth,  not  simply  of  man 
but  of  TRUE  God.  See  First  Book  of  Gregory,  De- 
cret  9,  Chap.  3,  and  Corpus  Juris  Canon  Extrava- 
gants,  Com.  Lib.  1. 

Thus  he  had  power,  as  God  on  earth,  not  only  to 
make  and  pardon  sin,  but  to  make  and  dethrone  kings 
and  emperors,  to  make  and  change  church  ordinan- 
ces, and  the  church  itself  into  another  thing, — and 
bind  her  members  under  anathema  to  believe  '*  that 
it  was  not  only  lawful,  but  even  praise-worthy  to  de- 
ceive and  to  use  the  expedient  of  a  lie  in  order  to  ad- 
vance the  cause  of  truth  and  piety y — Moshiem's 
Church  History^  Vol.  1,  p.  198. 

At  the  head  of  an  army,  falsely  called  a  church, 
fixed  in  the  faith  just  described,  the  Pope  went  on  to 
denounce,  not  only  churches,  but  whole  nations  as 
heretics,  and  with  his  two-fold  power  they  were  con- 
verted to  his  faith  and  service  or  inhumanly  murder- 
ed. In  the  valley  of  Piedemont  alone,  it  is  supposed 
that  more  than  a  million  of  the  Waldenses  and  Albi- 
genses  were  put  to  death.  In  France,  within  the 
space  of  thirty  years,  39  Princes,  148  Counts,  234 
Barons,  147,518  gentlemen,  760,000  persons  of  a  low- 
er rank  were  destroyed  as  heretics.  Thus  loars.  mur- 
der^ burnings  banishing  and  disgrace  have  been 
dealt  out  to  the  defenceless  lambs  of  Christ  in  Italy, 
Palestine,  Germany,  Bohemia,  Greece,  England, 
France,  Spain,  Portugal,  Africa,  &c,,  for  centuries 
past,  by  the  hand  of  this  enemy  of  God  and  man. 
Her  motto  has  been,  "  On  pain  of  anathema,  permit 
not  the  heretics  to  have  houses  in  your  districts,  or 
enter  into  contracts,  or  carry  on  commerce,  or  enjoy 
the  comforts  of  humanity  with  Christians." — Bull  of 
Pope  Martin,  V.,  A.  D.  1418.    And  to  effectually  hard- 


75 

en  their  hearts,  Cajetan,  on  the  authority  of  Clement 
YI.,  published,  that  ''  as  one  drop  of  Christ's  blood 
was  sufficient  to  redeem  the  whole  human  race,  the 
remaining  quantity,  that  was  shed  in  the  garden  and 
on  the  cross,  was  left  as  a  legacy  to  the  church,  to  t^e 
a  treasure  from  whence  indulgences  were  to  be  drawn 
and  administered  by  the  Roman  Pontiff."  But  as  the 
Pope  and  his  Catholic  church  could  not  have  been 
fighting  shadows  from  A.  D.  606  to  A.  D.  1600,  we 
therefore  ask  what  denomination  of  Christians  sustain- 
ed these  sufferings  ? 

Certainly  not  the  Lutherans,  for  Martin  Luther, 
the  founder  of  this  sect  was  born  at  Isleben,  in  Sax- 
ony, Nov.  10,  A.  D.  1483.  Both  he  and  his  followers 
were  persecuting  Roman  Catholics  till  A.  D.  1517, 
when  he  began  to  oppose  John  Tetzel  for  selling  in- 
dulgencies  in  Germany.  The  Pope's  bull  against 
Luther  bears  date  June  15,  A.  D.  1520,  and  Dec.  10, 
A.  D.  1520,  Luther  burnt  the  bull,  decretals  and  can- 
ons at  Wittemberge,  and  began  preaching  his  new 
doctrine.  Their  confession  of  faith  was  composed  by 
Luther  and  Melancthon,  A.  I).  1530.  Their  number 
in  the  United  States,  A.  D.  1836,  was  62,266. 
'  It  was  not  the  Preshyterians^  for  John  Calvin,  the 
founder  of  this  sect,  was  born  in  Noyon,  in  Prance, 
July  10,  A.  D.  1509.  He,  and  his  associates  were 
persecuting  Catholics  till  A.  D.  1534,  when  he  was 
converted  atid  fled  from  the  Catholics  to  Geneva,  and 
established  his  church  there  about  A.  D.  1536.  Chris- 
tianity had  flourished  in  Scotland  from  the  third  to  the 
fi^th  century,  at  which  time  the  Pope  sent  Palladius 
to  convert  those  Scotch  Christians,  whom  he  called 
Culdees  to  papacy,  which  from  this  time  continued  to 
be  the  religion  of  the  nation  till  A.  D.  1560.  Resby, 
Hamilton,  Wishart,  Mill,  and  others,  opposed  papacy 
in  their  time:  but  at  A.  D.  1559,  when  John  Knox 
returned  from  Geneva,  he  introduced   John   Calvin's 


.       76 

doctrines,  and  A.  D.  1560  Calvinism  was  established 
by  law  as  the  religion  of  the  kingdom.  From  that 
time  and  place,  Calvinism  (which  we  call  Presbyteri- 
anism,)  spread  first  into  England,  then  into  America. 
The  Presbyterians  formed  a  union  and  opened  com- 
munion with  the  CongregatJonalists,  at  Saybrook, 
Sept.  9,  A.  D.  1708,  which  continued  to  May,  A.  D. 
1837,  when  they  excluded  the  CongregatJonalists. 
A.  D.  1835  they  numbered  274,048 ;  but  A.  D.  1838, 
the  denomination  divided  and  went  to  law  for  their 
rights,  and  which  party  will  finally  bear  the  name,  or 
what  will  be  their  number,  we  can  not  say. 

It  certainly  was  not  the  Co7igregationalists.  for 
the  Browfiists  began  under  the  labors  of  Robert 
Brown,  at  Middleburgh,  in  Zealand,  A.  D.  1590 ;  and 
John  Robinson,  of  Norfolk,  England,  began  Brown - 
ism  in  his  place,  A.  D.  1616.  and  they  called  them- 
selves Independents.  When  they  were  persecuted  in 
England  they  fled  to  Holland,  and  from  there  to  Amer- 
ica, A-  D.  1620;  and  when  they  organized  churches 
in  this  country,  they  denominated  themselves  Con- 
gregationalists.  Their  first  confession  of  faith  was 
dated  Cambridge,  A.  D.  1648,  and  their  second  Say- 
brook,  A.  D.  1708.  Their  present  number  is  about 
150,000  members. 

Neither  were  the  persecuted  the  Episcopaliatis. 
Christianity  was  planted  in  England  about  A.  D.  60, 
and  flourished  till  A.  D.  597,  when  the  Pope  sent  Austin, 
the  Monk,  with  about  forty  others,  who,  by  fraud  and 
threats,  brought  a  majority  of  the  British  churches 
under  the  papal  yoke  and  kept  them  there.  A.  D. 
1200,  John,  King  of  England,  interfered  with  the  Pa- 
pal influence,  and  Innocent  III.  laid  an  interdict  upon 
the  kingdom.  In  A.  D.  1211,  the  Pope  excommuni- 
cated King  John  ;  and  A.  D.  1212,  he  dethroned  him, 
and  gave  Philip  Augustus,  King  of  France,  authority 
to  take  the  kingdom.     Pandulf.  the  Pope's  legate,  took 


77 

John's  crown  and  kept  it  five  days,  and  when  John 
was  sufficiently  humbled,  it  was  given  to  him  as  a 
present  from  the  Pope.  Henry  VIII.  was  a  Ro- 
man Catholic,  and  during  the  reformation  he  so  bit- 
terly opposed  Martin  Luther,  that  Pope  Leo  X. 
declared  him  Defender  of  the  Faith^  A.  D.  1521. 
But,  after  this,  Henry  VIII.  fell  in  love  v/ith  Anna 
Bullen,  and  petitioned  Pope  Clement  VII.  to  divorce 
him  from  his  wife  Catharine ;  and,  because  Clement 
would  not,  he  broke  communion  with  the  church  of 
Rome,  and  declared  himself  head  of  the  church  of 
England,  A.  D.  1534.  Henry  died,  A.  D.  1547,  and 
Edward  VI.,  his  son,  reigned  to  A.  D.  1553.  Then 
Mary,  his  sister,  who  was  a  violent  Roman  Catholic, 
took  the  throne,  and  during  her  reign  protestants  suf- 
fered great  persecution.  She  died  A.  D.  1558,  and 
Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Henry  VIII.,  by  Anna 
Bullen,  reigned  to  1603.  During  her  reign  the  Epis- 
copal church  was  established.  Thus  England  was 
under  Catholicism  960  years ;  and  the  principal 
change  that  took  place  when  they  reformed,  or  that 
exists  now,  is  that  they  reject  the  Pope's  authority  and 
some  of  his  external  ceremonies.  They  plead  that  their 
priests  and  church  order  are  one  and  the  same  with 
the  Roman  Catholics  ;  and  so  far  from  being  ashamed 
of  it,  they  are  proud  to  defend  it ;  and,  they  are  so 
certain  of  it,  that  they  will  not  exchange  jnilpits  with 
any  others.  They  have  about  850  churches  in  the 
United  States. 

The  sufferers  were  not  Methodists^  (see  Methodist 
Discipline,  page  1,)  for  they  originated  in  England, 
A.  D.  1737,  and  in  A.  D.  1766  they  came  to  America. 
Their  first  meeting  house  was  built  in  John-street,  N. 
York,  A,  D.  1769.  They  numbered  in  A.  D.  1835, 
(counting  their  probationers,  &c.,)  566,957  whites,  and 
83,135,  colored. 

From  the  above  it  is  obvious  that  it  was  not  the 
7* 


78 

Lutherans,  the  Preshyteriafis^  the  Episcopalians. 
the  Congregationalists  or  the  Methodists^  who  en- 
dured the  Romish  persecutions;  for  none  of  these 
denominations  existed  earher  than  A.  D.  1560. 
Hence  the  oldest  of  these  sects  is  but  318,  and  the  last 
mentioned  but  101  years  old.  From  these  unassailable 
facts  you  will  perceive  how  vain  it  is  for  either  of  the 
above  denominations  to  plead  that  they  are  the  first 
true  church.  The  Mormons,  or  any  other  sect  that 
has  sprung  up  within  five  or  ten  years  past,  could  as 
well  attempt  to  trace  the  chain  of  their  history  to  Christ 
and  the  apostles.  Whenever  they  have  attempted  it, 
they  all  uniformly  acknowledge  themselves  the  recent 
offspring  of  that  church  which  they  call  the  mother 
of  harlots  and  enemy  of  God  ;  and  in  attempting  to 
prove  their  faith  and  practices  correct,  they  quote  her 
laws  and  usages  as  authority. 

It  is  not  expected  that  we  should  give  a  church 
history  in  this  limited  essay.  All  that  will  be  done 
i^  to  glance  at  the  existence  of  the  church  in  each 
successive  century  ;  and  we  shall  only  be  able  to  notice 
where  the  true  church  flourished  in  one  or  two  places 
at  the  same  time.  For  instance,  in  giving  the  histo- 
ry of  the  Baptists  in  this  century,  it  would  be  requi- 
site, in  order  to  a  correct  view  of  the  denomination, 
to  notice  its  existence  and  condition  in  Europe  and 
Asia;  but  the  limits  of  this  work  will  only  allow  me 
to  mention  that  of  our  own  country.  It  is  acknowl- 
edged that  there  is  a  people  in  America  called  Bap- 
tists, and  that  they  have  at  present  409  associations, 
7,135  churches,  4,160  ordained  ministers,  and  that 
their  additions  by  baptism  in  A.  D.  1837,  was  23,070, 
and  that  their  present  number  of  communicants  is 
518,126,  and  that  the  first  Baptist  church  in  America 
was  organized  by  Roger  Williams,  in  Providence,  R. 
I.,  A.  D.  1639.  Since  that  time  the  Baptists  have 
been  well  known  ;  but  in  tracing  their  history  through 


79 

preceding  ages,  we  are  obliged  to  learn  their  existence 
and  condition  mostly  from  the  concessions  of  Roman 
Catholics,  and  other  oppos.ers;  for,  during  the  Pagan 
and  Papal  persecutions,  which  continued  from  A.  D. 
66,  to  A.  D.  1700,  it  was  the  constant  aim  of  the 
Catholics  and  their  allies  to  destroy  the  writings^  as 
well  as  the  persons  of  the  true  church. 

Owing  to  the  different  languages  of  those  nations 
where  the  followers  of  Christ  have  lived,  and  to  the 
asperities  of  their  opposers,  the  church  has  been  known 
by  the  name  of  Baptists,  Anabaptists,  Wickliffites,  Lol- 
lards, Hugonots,  Mennonites,  Hussites,  Petrobrusians, 
Albigenses,  Waldenses,  Paulicans,  &c. ;  and  to  op- 
pose image  worship,  infant  baptism,  transubstantia- 
tion,  and  the  unwarrantable  power  of  the  Pope,  have 
ever  been  characteristics  of  this  people.  Therefore 
Roman  Catholics  have  heaped  upon  us  names  as 
above,  and  persecuted  us  as  heretics  ;  and  the  pedo- 
baptists,  who  are  the  offspring  of  the  Romish  church,  as 
we  have  shown,  have  adopted  the  same  course,  re- 
alizino^  that  if  the  true  church  can  be  traced  down  to 
the  apostles,  independent  of  the  Romish  church,  it 
will  set  the  origin  of  their  denominations  in  no  favor- 
able light.  Hence  the  calumny  and  reproach  which 
Milner,  Cave,  Moshiem,&;c.,  have  cast  upon  Servetus^ 
Wickliff,  Muncer,  Huss,  Jerome,  Waldo,  Hugo,  Claude, 
Constantino,  Tertulian,  Novatian,  &c.,  and  the  un- 
warrantable encomiums  which  they  constantly  heap 
on  Martin  Luther  and  John  Calvin,  who  were  but 
im'perfect  iTuitators  of  the  above   named   reformers. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  writings  of  these  pedo- 
baptist  authors,  the  reader  should  just  consider  how 
the  Baptists  in  this  age  would  be  represented  were  our 
opponents  (say  Mr.  Chapin,)  to  write  a  church  histo- 
ry. Is  it  not  evident  that  we  should  be  wholly  neg- 
lected or  grossly  misrepresented  ?  And  such  has  been 
the  conduct  of  pedobaptist  writers  of  past  ages.     To 


80 

obtain  correct  knowledge  of  the  true  church,  I  would 
refer  you  to  the  histories  written  by  Perrin,  Ivemy, 
Jones,  Backus,  Benedict,  Robinson's  researches,  and 
Moreland's  history  of  the  Waldenses,  &c.  As  it  can 
be  proved  that  all  the  dissenting  pedobaptist  churches 
arose  in  and  since  the  sixteenth  centurj^,  they  have 
made  a  mighty  effort  to  fix  our  origin  at  about  the 
same  time.  Hence  their  endeavors  to  make  the  un- 
learned believe  that  the  Baptists  had  their  origin  in 
the  Rustic  war,  or  Munster  rebellion.  It  is  a  fact 
that  in  A.  D.  1524,  there  was  much  uneasiness  among 
the  German  peasants  because  of  the  oppressions  of 
the  feudal  system  and  Catholic  tythes  ;  and  the  Cath- 
oHcs  of  Saubia  rebelled,  but  this  was  soon  suppressed. 

In  A.  D.  1520,  Luther  published,  in  the  German 
language,  a  tract  on  Christian  liberty,  and  during  the 
winter  of  A.  D.  1524-5  this  tract  was  industriously 
circulated  in  Saubia,  Munster,  and  vicinities;  and  the 
spirit  of  reformation  had  so  kindled  through  Germany 
that  in  the  spring  of  A.  D.  1525,  about  300,000  men, 
not  exclusively  Lutherans,  Catholics,  Baptists  or  non- 
professors,  but  of  all  sorts  collectively,  arose  for  liber- 
ty. One  Thomas  Muncer,  a  disciple  of  Luther, 
whom  the  people  called  Luther's  curate,  and  Luther 
called  him  his  Absalom,  had  now  become  a  Baptist, 
and  after  the  Munster  revolt  had  been  going  on  for 
some  time,  he  drew  up  a  memorial  or  manifesto  for 
the  revolutionists,  which  was  a  mild,  pacific  and  reli- 
gious document.  That  there  were  some  Baptists  en- 
gaged in  that  affair  is  evident,  but  "it  is  certain  that 
the  disturbance  in  Munster  was  commenced  by  Ber- 
nard Rotman,  a  Lutheran  priest,  and  that  several  oth- 
er Lutheran  priests  assisted  in  it  for  several  months 
before  Muncer  visited  the  place." — Ivemy^  p.  16. 

'•The  Catholics  uniformly  say  that  Luther's  doc- 
trine led  to  the  rebellion,  and  that  his  disciples  were 
the  prime  movers  of  it,  and  affirm  that   130,000  Lu- 


81 

therans  fell  in  the  Rustic  war.  This,  they  s&jj  is  the 
fruit  of  the  new  doctrine;  this  is  the  fruit  of  Luther's 
gospe].''—Mibier,  vol.  5,  pp.  320,  327. 

It  is  thus  evident,  by  referring  to  the  Cathohcs,  who 
equally  hated  the  Lutherans  and  the  Baptists;  and, 
tiierefore,  were  impartial  judges,  that  the  Munster  af- 
fair did  not  originate  the  Baptists,  or  the  Baptists  the 
Munster  affair  ;  but,  that  it  was  an  effort  for  Christian 
liberty,  moved  on  by  the  Lutherans, — and,  had  they 
been  successful,  no  doubt  but  Luther  would  have  ap- 
peared at  the  head,  for  it  is  evident  he  was  at  the  bot- 
tom of  it.  But,  as  it  failed,  and  therefore  was  inglo- 
rious, Luther  disclaimed  his  connectioi],  and  modern 
pedobaptists  have  attempted  to  charge  it  to  the  Bap- 
tists. 

But,  leaving  this,  as  none  but  the  ignorant  can  be 
made  to  believe  that  the  Baptist  church  had  its  origin 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  we  pass  to  notice  that,  in  A. 
D.  1764,  there  was  a  history  of  religion  published  in 
London,  in  four  volumes,  in  which  it  was  written  : — 
"It  is  clear  from  many  authors  that  Wickl  iff  rejected 
infant  baptism,  and  that  on  this  doctrine  his  followers 
agreed  with  modern  Baptists."  His  followers  were 
called  Lollards,  and  Waldenses,  and  persecuted  as 
heretics.  In  the  eighteenth  century  we  find  John 
Howard,  the  philanthropist,  and  multitudes  of  others 
in  England  and  other  nations  of  Europe,  decided 
Baptists.  About  A.  D.  1655,  the  Duke  ojf  Savoy 
dreadfully  persecuted  the  Baptists  in  the  South  of 
France  and  the  vallies  of  Piedmont,  whom  he  called 
Waldenses,  Yaldenses  and  heretics.  At  this  time  Oliver 
Cromwell  was  Protector  of  England,  and  John  Milton, 
the  poet,  was  Secretary  of  State.  The  intelligence 
of  the  Waldensian  massacre  reached  London,  May  20, 
A.  D.  1655,  upon  which  Milton  wrote  a  thrilling  son- 
net, of  which  this  first  verse  is  a  specimen  : 


82 

"  Avenge,  O  Lord,  thy  slaughtered  sainls,  whose  bones, 
-  ^  Liescatfered  on  the  Alpine  mountains  cold: 
-  Even  them  who  kepi  thy  truth  so  pure  of  old, 
Jj^    When  all  our  fathers  worshipped  slocks  and  stones." 

That  Cromwell  and  Milton  favored  the  Waidenses, 
or  Baptists,  in  sentiment,  is  equally  evident  from  the 
letters  which  Milton  wrote  to  the  Christian  Princes  of 
Europe,  (see  Jones' Church  History,  vol.  2,  pp.  319 — 
336,)the  influence  of  which  moved  the  Duke  of  Savoy 
to  stop  the  persecution  ;  but  he  renewed  it  again  A.  I). 
1663,  and  thus  persecutions  continued  until  A.  D. 
1686,  when  he  issued  orders  to  remove  or  kill  all  the 
V/aldenses  in  his  territory,  which  resulted  in  destroy- 
ing many  and  removing  more  into  Switzerland  and 
other  countries.  See  Burnett's  Letters  from  Italy, 
Letter  1,  pp.  57.  58. 

But,  as  it  is  well  known  that  the  Baptists  were  nu- 
merous in  all  Europe  and  America  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  we  pass  to  notice  that,  in  this  century  Martin 
Luther.  John  Calvin  and  some  others,  broke  off  from 
the  Catholics.  Luther  took  with  him  the  doctrine  of 
coiisubstantiation,  which  is  but  another  name  for  tran- 
substantiation,  and  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism,  to- 
gether with  other  errors;  and  Calvin  brought  with 
him  not  only  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism,  but  the 
spirit  o{  persecution,  which  was  too  manifest  in  the 
murder  of  Ser^etus  and  other  acts  of  the  kind.  From 
A,  D.  1250,  up  to  A.  D.  1400,  the  Waidenses  suffered 
dreadful  persecutions  in  France,  Germany  and  Neth- 
erlands; and  a  small  number  of  them  fled  to  Cala- 
bria, where  they  formed  a  church  and  lived  in  the 
apostolic  faith  until  A.  D,  1560,  when  the  Calabrian 
Waidenses  formed  a  union  with  the  Calvinists  at 
Geneva,  and  so  far  conformed  to  the  Romish  religion 
that  they  baptized  their  infants.  To  this,  with  a  few 
instances  of  the  kind,  modern  pedobaptists  refer,  to 
prove  that  the  Waidenses  were  not  Baptists ;    but  we 


83 

could  as  well  say  because  one  Baptist  church  in 
America  became  corrupt  in  faith,  therefore  they  all 
had.  The  few  individuals  who  were  drawn  into  in- 
fant baptism  and  the  like  errors,  by  Luther  and  Cal- 
vin, are  but  slight  exceptions. 

Dr.  MosHiEM  says,  "  The  sect  in  England  which 
reject  the  custom  of  baptizing  infants,  are  not  distm- 
guished  by  the  title  of  Anabaptists,  but  by  that  of 
Baptists.  It  is,  however,  probable,  that  they  derived 
their  origin  from  the    German  and  Dutch   Mennon- 

ites.- From  their  confession  of  faith,  which  was 

published  in  A.  D.  1643,  it  appears  plain  that  their  re- 
ligious sentiments  were  the  same  then  that   they  are 

at  this  day. The  true  origin  of  that  sect  which 

acquired  the  denomination  of  Anabaptists,  by  admm- 
istering  anew  the  rite  of  baptism  to  those  who  came 
over  to  their  communion  ;  and  derived  that  of  Men- 
nonites  from  the  famous  man  to  whom  they  owe  the 
greatest  part  of  their  present  felicity,  is  hid  in  the  re- 
mote depths  of  antiquity^  and  is  of  consequence  diffi- 
cult to   be  ascertained. '■ The    modern    Mennon- 

ites  not  only  consider  themselves  as  the  descendants 
of  the  Wa-ldenses,  who  were  so  grievously  oppressed 
and  persecuted  by  the  despotic  heads  of  the  Romish 
church,  but  pretend,  moreover,  to  be  the  purest  off- 
spring   of    those    respectable    sufferers. The 

Mennonites  are  not  entirely  mistaken  when  they 
boast  of  their  descent  from  the  Waldenses,  Petrobru- 
sians,  and  other  ancient  sects,  who  are  usually  consid- 
ered as  witnesses  of  the  truth  in  times  of  universal 
darkness  and  superstition.  Before  the  rise  of  Luther 
and  Calvin,  there  lay  concealed  in  almost  all  the 
countries  of  Europe,  particularly  in  Bohemia,  Moro- 
via,  Switzerland  and  Germany,  many  persons  who 
adhered  tenaciously  to  the  following  doctrines,  which 
the  Waldenses,  and  Wickliffites,  and  Hussites  had 
maintained,  some  in  more  disguised,  and  others  in 


84 

more  open  and  public  manner,  viz:  That  the  king*- 
dom  of  Christ,  or  the  visible  church  which  he  had 
established  upon  earth,  was  an  assembly  of  true  and 
real  saints,  and  ought  therefore  to  be  inaccessible  to 
the  wicked  and  unrighteous,  and  also  exempt  from 
all  those  institutions  which  human  prudence  suggests 
to  oppose  the  progress  of  iniquity,  or  correct  or  re- 
form   transgressors. The    religious   opinions 

which  still  distinguish  the  Mennonites  from  all  oth- 
er Christian  communities,  flow  directly  from  the  an- 
cient doctrine  of  the  Anabaptists  concerning  the  na- 
ture of  the  church.  It  is  in  consequence  of  this  doc- 
trine that  they  admit  none  to  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism, but  persons  that  have  come  to  the  full  use  of 
their  reason,  because  infants  are  incapable  of  binding 
themselves  by  a  solemn  vow  to  a  holy  life,  and  it  is 
altogether  uncertain  whether  or   no  in  mature  years 

they  will  be  saints  or  sinners. Before  the  rise 

of  Luther  and  Calvin,  there  lay  concealed  in  almost 
all  the  countries  of  Europe,  persons  who  had  adhered 
tenaciously  to  the  principles  of  the  Dutch  Baptists." — 
Church  History,  cent.  16th,  sec.  3,  part  2. 

In  A.  D.  1530,  Buflinger,  in  the  preface  to  his  ser- 
mon on  the  Revelation,  says,  "  for  400  years  and 
more,  m  France,  Italy,  Germany,  Bohemia  and  other 
countries,  throughout  the  world,  the  Waldenses  have 
sustained  their  profession  of  the  gospel  of  Christ." — 
Perrin's  History,  chapt.  6. 

A.  D.  1533,  Luther  published  the  confession  of  faith 
of  the  Waldenses,  with  a  preface  of  his  own,  in  which 
he  acknowledges  them  the  true  church  of  God.  Be- 
za,  in  his  treatises  of  "the  famous  pillars  of  learning^ 
and  religion,"  says,  "  as  for  the  Waldenses,  1  may  be 
permitted  to  call  them  the  very  seed  of  the  primitive 
and  pure  Christian  church." — Mor eland's  History  of 
the  Churches  of  Piedmont,  p.  58. 

Jacob  Merringus  says  "that  he  had  in  his  pos- 


85 

session  a  confession  of  faith,  in  the  German  lanoiiage, 
of  the  Baptists  called  Waldenses,  which  asserts  that 
in  thu  beo:inningof  Christianity  there  was  no  baptiz- 
ing of  infants,  and  that  their  forefathers  practiced  no 
such  thing." — Hisiojy,  part2,  p.73S. 

LiMBORCH  says,  "  To  speak  candidly  what  I  think 
of  all  the  modern  sects  of  Christians,  the  Dutch  Bap 
tists  most  resemble  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses.'*— 
History  of  the  Inquisition^  vol.  1,  cliapt.  8. 

A.  D.  1530,  George  Moreland  published  a  history 
of  the  Waldensian  churches,  in  which  he  says  that 
"at  that  time  there  were  more  than  800,000  communi- 
cants."   See  Moreland's  Evangelical  Churches,  p.  224. 

A.  D.  1400,  Henry  IV.,  King  of  England,  enacted 
a  law  for  the  burning  of  Waldensian  heretics,  and 
from  that  time  up  to  April  11,  A.  D.  1612,  when  Ed- 
ward VVightman  was  burnt  at  Litchfield,  there  were 
mnltitndes  who  suffered  imprisonment  and  death  for 
refusing  to  believe  infant  baptism,  and  other  Romish 
traditions.  A.  D.  1415,  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of 
Prague,  two  timious  Baptist  ministers,  and  leaders  of 
the  reformation  in  Bohemia,  were  bnrnt,  by  order  of 
the  Popish  council  of  Constance.  Wickliff's  writings 
were  destroyed,  and  his  bones  dug  up  and  burnt. 
William  Sawter,  Thomas  Badby,  and  Sir  John  Old- 
castle,  and  a  number  of  the  stars  of  the  true 
church  fell  during  this  century,  but  still  the  Baptist 
church  flnurislied  and  multiplied  throughout  the 
world.  It  was  in  A.  D.  1365,  that  John  Wickliff  be- 
gan to  be  popular  as  a  reformer,  and  great  multitudes 
followed  him.  During  his  labors  nearly  all  England 
was  awakened.  He  translated  the  Bible  into  Eng- 
lish, and  wrote  many  books.  His  followers  were 
called  Lollards,  after  Walter  Lollard,  a  Dutch  Bap- 
tist, who  came  from  Germany  into  England,  A.  D. 
1315.  Lollard  was  so  active,  and  blessed  of  God, 
that  it  was  with  much  difficulty  that  the  Catholics 
8 


86 

kept  the  kingdom  from  a  religious  revolnlion.  Dr, 
Hurd  snys,  *'  it  is  pretty  clear,  from  the  writings  of 
many  learned  men,  that  Dr.  John  V\  ickliff,  the  first 
English  reformer,  either  considered  infant  baptism  un- 
lawful, or  at  least  unnecessary." — Ivemy^  Hist.  p.  56- 

A.  D.  1382,  July  12,  Richard  II.,  King  of  Eng^ 
land,  published  an  order  for  the  bishops  to  seize  and 
imprison  all  f)ersons  suspected  of  Lollardiem;  and, 
during  this  persecution.  Hereford,  Rapyngdon,  Aysh- 
toa  and  many  others  suffered.  Reinerius  says  that 
"in  A.  D.  1259.  the  Paterine  (another  nickname  for 
true  Christians,)  churclj  at  Alba,  had  n^ore  than  500 
members;  and,  that  at  Coneorezzo,  more  than  1500, 
and  many  others  were  very  large."  A.  D.  1254,  the 
Popish  council  of  Alba  condenjned  the  Waldenses  as 
heretics,  and  because  there  were  many  of  them  in  and 
about  that  place,  they  called  them  Albigenses.  A.  D. 
1229,  during  the  French  persecution,  the  Waldenses 
spread  themselves  throughout  Italy,  atid  Reinerius 
Bays  that  about  A.  D.  1250  they  had  churches  in  A!- 
binia,  Lombardy,  Milan,  Roniagna.  Vencenza,  Flor- 
ence, (fcc,  and  in  A.  D.  1280,  thtjy  were  quite  plenty 
in  Sicily." — Peirin^s  History^  book  2,  chapt.  1(5. 

A.  D.  1215,  the  Bishop  of  Aiies  wrote  to  Pope  In- 
nocent III.,  complaining  that  his  pbice  was  tronblcd 
with  a  great  many  VValdensian  heretics,  who  said  it 
was  to  no  purpose  to  baptize  children." — Opera  In- 
nocent, tertii  torn  2,  p.  776.  A.  D.  1110,  Peter  Bruis, 
and  A.  I).  1147,  Henry  wrote  a2:ainst  the  Catliolics, 
and  in  reply,  Peter,  the  Catholic  Abbot  of  Clugny, 
wrote  ao^ainst  the  Petrobrusians  and  Henricians,  and 
charged  them  with  holding  the  following  errors,  "that 
infants  are  not  baptized  or  saved  by  the  faith  of  an- 
other, or  that  baptism,  without  their  own  faith,  does 
not  save,  and  that  those  that  were  baptized  in  infancy, 
when  grown  up,  should  be  baptized  again, — nor  aro 


87 

they  then  rebaptized,  but  rather  rightly  baptized.'* — 
Hist.  Eccl  Mag.  cent.  12,  chapt.  5,  p.  332. 

Dr.  Stennet  quotes  the  fol lowing:  words  from 
Cassanion^s  history  of  the  Waldenses  :  *' Some  writers 
have  affirmed  that  they  approved  not  of  the  baptism 
of  infants,  and  I  can  not  deny  that  the  greatest  part 
were  of  that  opinion;  but  the  truth  is,  they  did  not 
reject  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  but  only  accounted  it 
unnecessary  to  infants,  because  they  are  not  of  age  to 
beHeve,  or  capable  of  givincif  evidence  of  their  faith." 
— Appendix  lo  Stennet^  pp.  81,  82. 

Dr.  Wall  admits  that  the  Waidenses  were  antipe- 
dobaptists.  (See  Wall's  History  of  Baptism,  p.  171.) 
As  the  Catholics  baptized  by  immersion,  the  ancient 
Baptists  had  no  difficulty  with  them  about  the  mode. 
Hence,  image  worship,  infant  baptism,  transubstantia- 
tion  and  the  Pope's  authority,  were  the  chief  subjects 
of  contention  ;  and,  for  opposin^^  tliese,  they  suffered 
persecution.  A.  D.  116(3,  thirty  Waldenses  suffered 
martyrdom  at  Oxford,  England  ;  and,  during  the  per- 
secution in  the  South  of  France,  thc^e  were  so  many 
of  them  came  into  Enjrland,  that  in  the  reign  of  Henry 
IIJ.  the  ordcjrs  of  the  Friars  Minorites  were  intro- 
duced, to  suppress  the  Waldensian  heresy.'' — Arck 
Bishop  Usher,  in  Iveiny,  vol.  l^p.  59. 

A.  D.  1160,  Peter  Waldo  was  a  famous  Baptist 
preacher;  and,  some  have  supposed,  the  Waldenses 
derived  their  name  from  him,  but  it  is  evident  that 
they  were  at  first  called  Valdenses,  from  their  being 
in  the  vallies  of  Piedmont,  and  tliat  Valc/efises  was  fi- 
nally changed  into  Waldenses;  and  Reinerius  Sac- 
cho,  the  Inquisitor,  who  wrote  but  80  years  after  Pe^- 
ter  Waldo,  assures  us  that  the  Albisjenses,  or  Wal- 
denses had  flourished  more  than  500  years  before 
Waldo's  tiras.  S^eDr.  Rankin's  History  of  France, 
vol.  3,  p.  198-202. 

A.  D.  1160,  and  forward  for  about  20  years,  Waldo 


88 

was  persecuted  by  the  Catholics;  hut  yet  as  a  faithful 
reformer,  lie  preached  boldly  agaiust  Popish  fjower, 
image  worship,  infant  baptism  and  transubstaiitiation, 
in  Dauphiny,  Picardy,  Germany,  and  finally  in  Bo- 
hemia, where  he  died,  1179.  Wherever  he  preached 
multitudes  were  converted  to  God.  The  woik  of  re- 
vival did  not  stop  at  his  death,  but  extended  into  Bul- 
garia, Croatia,  Dalmatiaaiid  Hungary,  and  mullitudes 
of  Baptist  churches  were  planted,  which  flourished 
through  the  thirteenth  century.  In  A.  D.  1315,  it  is 
calculated  there  were  not  less  than  80,000  of  ihese  an- 
tipedobaptist  Christians  in  Bohemia.  See  Perrin's 
History,  chapt.  1,  2. 

A.  D.  1154,  a  small  society  of  tliese  Waldensian 
Christians  came  into  England,  and  William,  of  Neu- 
burgh,  a  Monkish  historian,  says  that  "ihey  came 
from  Gostynen,  (in  Poltind,)  where  they  weieas  nu- 
merous as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  and  that  they  had  sore- 
ly infested  France,  Spain  and  Italy."  Dr.  Henry's 
history  of  England  spenks  of  the  dreadful  persecution 
of  this  people,  on  page  33S. 

A.  D,  1147,  St.  Bernard,  in  his  letter  to  the  Earl 
of  St.  Gyles,  says  that  one  of  the  errors  of  the  Henri- 
cians  was  "  that  the  infants  of  Christiuns  are  hindered 
from  the  life  of  Christ,  the  grace  of  baptism  being  deni- 
ed them  ;  [and  he  adds,]  they  laugh  at  us  for  baptiz- 
ing infants." 

A.  b.  1140,  Henry,  an  Italian  Baptist,  became  very 
popular,  and  his  followers  were  called  Henricians.  He 
sustained  the  sentiments  of  the  denomination,  and 
preached  successfully  in  Switzerland,  Mans,  Bour- 
deaux,  and  A,  D.  1147,  in  Toulouse.  He  was  finally 
condemned  at  the  Council  of  Rheims,  and  died  in 
prison,  A.  D.  1158. 

A.  D.  1140,  Evervinus,  a  Catholic  priest  of  Ger- 
many, wrote  to  St.  Bernard  concerning  a  great  num- 
ber of  heretics  in  his   neighborhood,  who  cheerfully 


89 

suffered  death  rather  than  give  up  their  doctrine  ;  and, 
amonof  other  heresies,  he  said  ''  they  do  not  hold  to 
the  haptisrn  of  infants,  alledginof  as  a  proof  of  their 
sentiinents,  Mark  xvi.  16,  he  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized..  <Sf*c.  These  in  our  country  we  call  Cath- 
arl,  in  Flanders  they  call  them  Pip/iles,  in  France 
Tisseratids^  and  Egbert  the  Monk  says  they  are  in- 
creased to  great  multitudes^  throuoffiout  all  coun- 
tries."    See  Dr.  Allix's  remarks,  pp.  150.  152. 

A.  D.  1139,  Arnold,  of  Brisci-i,  roused  the  people  of 
his  charofe  to  active  opposition  against  the  awful  cor- 
ruptions of  the  church  of  Rome,  and  Pope  Innocent 
II.  summoned  the  Lattcran  Council,  and  anathematiz- 
ed and  condemned  Arnold  to  perpetual  silence,  as  a 
Waldensian  heretic,  because  he  preached  against  tran- 
substantiation,  infant  baptism,  (fee.  But,  so  far  from 
beiuij  silent,  he  entered  Rom.e  and  preached  with  such 
success  that  nearly  all  the  city  arose  against  Popery; 
and  it  is  a  well  known  fact  that  Pope  Eugenius  was 
consecrated  in  a  fortress  without  the  city,  to  escape 
the  violence  of  the  people,  but  by  force  of  arms  Ar- 
nold was  finally  taken  and  burnt,  A.  D.  1155.  See 
Edinburo^h  Encyclopedia,  article  Arnold,  and  Dr.  Al- 
lix,  p.  169. 

A.  D.  1120,  the  Waldenses  published  a  treatise  con- 
cerning antichrist,  which  contp.ins  several  sermons  of 
their  ministers  of  that  age.  In  this  work  they  prefer 
several  charges  against  the  Pope,  as  the  antichrist,  the 
third  of  which  is  '-'•that  he  baptizes  children^  See 
Perrins'  history,  pp.  60,  6^. 

A.  D.  1110,  "Peter  de  Bruis  labored  with  great 
success  in  the  South  of  France,  and  m.ultitudes  became 
his  disciple^,  who  were  called  Petrobrusinns.  They 
strenuously  advocated  that  baptism  was  to  be  admin- 
istered only  to  adiilts."  See  Moshiem's  Church  His- 
tory, cent.  12,  part  2,  chapt.  5. 

A.  D.  1110,  "  Peter  de  Bruis,  and  his  disciple  Hen- 
8* 


90 

ry,  taught  that  infants  on^ht  not  to  be  baptized,  and 
they  made  many  converts." — Du  Piri,  vol.  3,  p.  702. 

A.  D.  IIOI),  "the  Waldenses  spread  themselves 
throngh  Poland  and  Lithuania,  and  ever  since  that 
they  have  been  propagating  their  doctrine  there,  which 
differs  bnt  little  from  the  modern  Baptitts."  See  Le 
SieurdeLi  Popeliniere.  history  of  France. 

A.  D.  1066,  William  the  Conquerer  ascended  the 
throne  of  Britain,  and  durino-  his  reign  many  Wal- 
denses from  F'rance,  Germany  and  Holland,  came  into 
England.  They  remained  m  the  peaceful  possession 
of  Christian  liberty,  and  ofreatly  raultiplii^d,  until  A.  D. 
1218,  when  there  was  a  Popish  order  sent  to  the  Bish- 
ops of  Englnnd  to  suppress  the  Waldensian,  heresy. 

About  1050,  Berengarius  arose,  and  greatly  oppos- 
ed the  Popish  doctrines.  'He  was  principal  of  the 
Academy  at  Tours,  in  France.  In  A.  F).  1055,  a 
Council  was  assembled  at  Tours  by  Pope  Lio  IX.,  to 
examine  the  heresy  of  Berengarius,  and  another  at 
Rome,  A.  D.  1078.  But.  after  preaching  successfully 
against  image  worship,  infant  b.iptism  and  Papal  pow- 
er, he  died  in  peace,  A.  D.  1088.  "During  this  cen- 
tury the  Emperors  of  Germany  and  Kino:s  of  Eng- 
land opposed  the  Pope's  dominion. Vast  num- 
bers about  Orleans,  in  France,  and  in  Flaiiders,  testi- 
fied against  transubstantiation,  purgatory,  penance, 
relics,  traditions,  <fcc. And  some  good  histori- 
ans assert  that  ahnost  all  the  French,  Italians  and 
English  were  infected  with  this  opinion." — Biown's 
Bible  Dictionary.,  p.  153. 

"Amid  the  shocking  ignorance  and  wickedness  of 
the  tenth  century,  numbers  in  Germany,  France  and 
Britain,  still  opposed  the  VAor-hip  ot"  imaoes,  <fcc.  A, 
D.  909,  the  Council  of  Soissons,  in  France,  publish- 
ed a  confession,  (of  faith,)  mostly  the  s;ime  in  sub- 
stance with  those  of  the  protesttint  churches.  (The 
difference  was  that  this  confession  disapproved  of  in- 


91 

fant  baptism,  which  pedobaptists  practice)  The 
Council  of  Rheims  declared  ihe  Popes  censurable  if 
they  did  amiss.  Many  churches  refused  lo  part  with 
the  use  of  the  Scriptures  in  their  own  hmguage. 
Athelstan,  Kinor  of  England,  caused  them  to  be  trans= 
lated  into  the  huis^uage  of  his  Anolo-Saxon  subjects. 
Heriger,  the  Abbot  of  Lobes,  with  Affric  and  Wulfin,  of 
England,  opposed  transubstantiation.  Florus,  Pru- 
dentins,  Tricassin.  Lupus,  Servatus  and  other  noted 
clergymen,  opposed,  <fec." — Brown^s  Bible  Diction- 
ary^ p.  153. 

This  century  did  not  afford  many  reformations. 
The  life  and  prosperity  of  the  church,  as  to  means, 
depended  more  on  the  influence  of  men  in  the  preced- 
ing century,  especially  that  of  Claude.  However, 
from  A.  D.  950,  to  A.  D.  1U50,  the  Baptist  church  was 
active;  and,  notwithstanding  the  perse(  utions,  they 
continued  to  increase.  Turin,  the  capital  of  Pied- 
mont, was  formerly  the  residence  of  the  King  of  Sar- 
dinia, and  in  A.  I).  1798,  it  had  100.000  inhabitants, 
A.  D.  817,  Claude  was  promoted  to  the  See  of  Turin. 
He  soon  began  to  bear  testimony  against  Romish  pol- 
huions,  and  continued  his  labors  in  Turin  for  about 
20  years;  and  the  vallies  of  Piednjont,  which  belong- 
ed to  the  bishopric  of  Turin,  received  their  religion 
from  him, — and  it  is  abuiidantly  proved  that  the 
churches  in  Piedmont,  Milan,  Turin,  &c.,  held  no 
communion  with  the  church  of  Rome,  but  were  of  the 
same  faith  with  the  modern  Baptists  and  ancient 
Paulicans. 

"Claude,  Bishop  of  Turin,  in  his  numerous  writ- 
inofs,  maintained  that  all  the  apostles  were  equal  to  Pe- 
ter— that  .Jesus  Christ  was  the  only  head  of  the 
church — that  the  church  is  fallible,  and  no  traditions 
ought  to  be  regarded  in  religion— that  no  prayers 
ought  to  be  made  for  the  dead,  uor  images  of  saints  or 
angels    to  be   worshiped — that  all  superstitious    pil- 


92 

grimaces  nnd  penance  ought  to  belaid  aside — that  the 
eiemenis  of  the  Lord's  Supper  are  but  means  of  rep- 
resenting the  body  and  blood  of  Clirist  to  believers.** 
-wBrown's  Bible  Dictionary^  p.  1 52. 

Claude  may  be  properly  called  the  Apostle  of  the 
reformation,  while  Luther  and  Calvin  were  but  tTni- 
tators  of  this  great  man  :  and,  had  they  followed  him 
fully,  and  left  infant  baptism  and  other  Romish  no- 
tions behind,  they  would  have  bet-n  greater  blessings 
to  the  world.  It  is  true  that  the  ninth  was  a  dark 
century,  and  that  Romish  doctrines  greatly  covered 
the  world  ;  but  the  reason  why  they  did  was  because 
theRo[nans  were  powerful  in  arms.und  when  they  sub- 
dued a  nation  or  people,  they  com[)el!ed  them  to  submit 
to  their  religion;  thus  infant  baptism  spread  ly  physi- 
cal and  not  by  moral  power.  Meanwhile  Nicepho- 
ras,  Leo  V.,  Michael  IJL,  Emperors  of  the  East,  with 
nearly  all  the  Greek  Bishops,  opposed  these  Catholic 
innovations  in  religion  ;  and  Rh<mji£ius,  Bishop  of 
Lyons,  and  Valentine  and  the  Lingonensian,  and 
Chrisiians  known  by  other  names,  stood  fust  on  apos- 
tolic grounds. 

A.  D.  726,  Leo  Lsaurian,  the  Greek  Emperor,  who 
resided  at  Constantinople,  but  by  ri^rht  governed  Italy 
as  well  as  what  is  now  called  the  Ottoman  Rmpire, 
discovering  that  the  church  at  Rome  was  beginning 
image  worship,  issued  an  edict  against  the  practice. 
At  this  time  Gregory  II.,  who  was  Pope  or  Bishop  of 
Rome,  violently  opposed  the  edict,  and  continued  to 
do  so  until  lie  died,  A.  D.  731,  and  Gres^ory  III.,  par- 
takin<r  the  spirit  of  his  predecessor,  excluded  Leo,  A. 
D.  732.  The  great  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Italy,  agreeinof  with  Gregory,  were  carried  on  by  the 
tide  of  popular  feeling,  to  embrace  not  only  image 
worship  and  infant  baptism,  but  sunk  into  other  errors 
to  which  they  had  been  strangers  until  this  time.  It 
was  in  this  contest  that  the  Italian  provinces  separated 


93 

from  the  Greek  empire,  and  the  Greek  and  Roman 
churches  ceased  to  fellowship  each  other.  Whateve-r 
defects  may  have  characterized  the  Greek  church  in 
this  age,  it  is  evident  that  they  maintained  the  sub- 
stance of  Scripture  doctrines  and  practices,  and  were 
the  very  churches  which  had  arisen  successively  out 
of  those  planted  by  the  apostles  ;  and  that  their  num- 
ber at  this  time  was  much  larger  than  those  that  had 
followed  Gregory.  Among  these  Greek  churches  th« 
Paulicans  appeared  as  reformers,  as  the  Waldenses  did 
among  the  Romans. 

A.  D.  660,  the  Paulicans  arose,  in  the  town  of  Ma- 
nanalis,  in  the  vicinity  of  Somosata.  Here  lived  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Constantine.  who  entertained  al 
his  house  a  deacon  of  a  church  in  Syria,  who  had  been 
carried  away  cnplive  by  the  Mahometans,  and  was 
now  on  his  return.  From  this  passing  stransrer  Con- 
stantine received  a  copy  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the 
Greek  language.  He  studied  it  with  care,  and  began 
to  publish  its  contents,  and  soon  a  Christian  church 
was  collected.  In  a  little  time  several  individuals 
arose  among  them  qualified  for  the  ministry,  and  ma- 
ny churches  were  collected  in  Armenia  and  Cappado- 
cia.  Their  public  appearance  attracted  the  notice  of 
the  Catholic  party,  who  immediately  began  to  perse= 
cute  them,  calling  them  Manicheans  and  Paulicans. 
Constantine  continued  his  labors,  and  Pontus  and 
Cappadocia,  and  all  Asia  Minor  to  the  west  of  the  Eu- 
phrates, had  pure  religion  revived  again.  As  they  in= 
creased  and  spread  to  the  west,  they  were  often  identi- 
fied with  the  Waldenses,  because  they  opposed  image 
worship,  infant  baptism  and  the  power  of  the  Pope, 
which  were  the  common  characteristics  of  both.  We 
can  trace  the  history  of  the  church  by  the  persecutions 
which  they  suffered  under  the  nanie  of  Paulicans,  to 
A.  I).  810.-/0/255'  Church  Bisiort/j  vol.  1,  page9 
384-387. 


94 

But  why  shonlfl  we  stay  to  trace  the  history  of  th« 
Baptist  church  in  that  age,  by  the  sufferings  of  Chris- 
tians bearing  one  name.  "There  have  tetn  whole 
nations  of  martyr Sy  who,  after  witnessing  a  good  con- 
fession before  men  and  angels,  have  been  sacrified  by 

thousands  to  the   bhnd  rage  of  superstition. 

It  would  be  an  unpardonable  omission  to  pass  entire- 
ly unnoticed  that  venerable  and  prinniive  peoptey 
'Vho  were  the  depository  of  Christ ia?f  InUk  durirtg^ 
so  many  ages,  when  darkness  covered  the  earth,  and 
gross  darkness  the  people.  The  Paulic.ans  in  ihe  East 
and  the  Waldknsks  in  the  West,  divide  this  praise. 
The  Patjh'cans  preceded  the  public  appearance  of  the 

Waldenses. '^i^hey    appeared    in    Cappadocia 

and  Armenia  about  the  njiddle  of  the  seventh  century, 

and  the  name  of  their  founder   was  Constaniine. 

He  became  a  preacher  of  righteousness,  and  was 

soon  surrounded  by  a  numerous  band  of  disciples, 
who  endeavored  in  all  things  to  conform  themselves 
to  scriptural  precepts.  This  sect,  in  general,  re- 
ceived the  natn3  of  Paulicans,  from  the  great  veneration 
which  they  professed  for  the  epistles  of  Paul.  Their 
progress  was  rapid,  and  the  light  of  truth  had  nearly 
spread  over  Asia    Minor,    when  the  fearful    storm   of 

persecution    descended     upon     them. These 

Christians,  now  generally  called  Waldenses,  were 
scattered  through  different  countries,  and  were  known 
by  various  names  in  different  situations,  though  a 
general  agreement  of  doctrine  and  practice  prevailed 
amon<r  them." — Christian  Martyrs,  by  the  American 
S.  S.   Union,  pp.  102-  -106. 

In  many  instances,  in  this  and  succeeding  ages,  the 
Baptist  church  was  charged  with  Arianism,  because 
they  did  not  admit  that  the  consecrated  wafer  was  the 
real  body  of  Christ  \  and  modern  pedobaptists,  adopt- 
ing the   language   of  the  Catholics,  still   coniinue  to 


95 

stigmatize  those  true  disciples  with  the  same  opprobn- 
ous  epithet.  , 

We  have  hastily  glanced  at  the  existence  of  the 
church  through  successive  ages,  until  we  have  arriv- 
ed at  the  time  when  the  church  of  Rome  assumed  her 
antiscriptural  power,  and  properly  became  the  mother 
of  harlots  and  the  abomination  of  the  earth.  We 
could  here  leave  our  cause,  believing  that  every  can- 
did  mind  would  be  satisfied  that  from  this  timedow'^ 
to  the  apostles,  the  churches  were  <renerally  built  on 
Scriptural  grounds.  But  to  do  justice  to  his  charac- 
ter, and  show  that  the  Romish  church  had  become 
corrupt  even  earlier  than  this.  I  would  remnrk  that 
A.  D.  251,  Novalian  separated  himself  from  ihe  cor- 
ruptions of  the  church  of  Rome,  and  estnblished  a 
church  on  apostolic  principles.  " No vaiitUi  was  an 
elder  in  the  church  of  Rome,  a  man  of  extensive  learn- 
ing, holding  the  same  doctrine  as  the  church.  His 
address  was  eloquent,  and  his  morals  irreproachable^ 
In  seasons  of  prosperity  many  persons  rushed  into  the 
church;  in  titnas  of  persecution  they  denied  the  faith; 
when  the  squall  was  over  they  came  {igain  to  the 
church.  The  Bishops,  forid  of  proselytes,  encourag- 
ed all  this,  and  also  heo^an  to  exchange  the  Christian 
virtues  for  a  vain  show  at  Easter.  Cornelius,  who 
had  often  countenanced  such  practices,  was  riominat- 
ed  for  Bishop  at  the  death  of  Fabian.  Novalian  be- 
ing unreconciled  to  their  half  'paganism  and  half 
Judaism'^  opposed  his  election  ;  and  when  Cornelius 
was  finally  elected,  Novatiau  and  many  others,  with- 
drew and  established  a  church  by  themselves.  Greai 
multitudes  followed  his  example,  and  all  over  the  em- 
pire puritan  churches  were  coistiiuted,  which  flour- 
ished ihrouxhout  the  succeeding  two  hundred  years. 
Tertuliau  had  left  the  church  at  Carthage  near  fifty 
years  bef)re  this,  for  the  same  reasons;  and  Privatus, 
and  several  more  had  repeatedly  remonstrated  againal 


96 

the  alterations  taking  place  in  the  church.  The  Rev 
man  Catholics  charge  Novjjtian  wiih  being  the  parent 
of  an  innumerable  multitude  of  congregntions  of  ;y?<ri- 
tans,  all  over  the  empke.^'—Robinson^sEcc.  Research- 
eSy  p.  126. 

That  iXovatian,  and  the  puritans  of  that  a<re.   had 
the  same  views  of  a  gospel  church  and  the  subjects  of 
baptism  that  the  Baptists  have  now,  is  too  obvious  to 
admit  of  debate.      Indeed,  the  Roman  Catholics  them- 
selves,  notwithstanding  ail  other  corruptions,  had  not 
yet  introduced  infant  baptism.      It  remained  for  after 
and  darker  ages  to  originate  this  antiscriptural    prac- 
tice,   as  we  siiall  presently  show.      We  have  not   in- 
troduced   the  puritans  of  that  age    because   the    true 
church  was  confined  to  them,  but  simply  to  show  that 
the  church  of  Rome  early  became  so  corrupt  that  good 
men  tied  from  her  influence.     It  is  a  well  known  fact, 
that  during  the  third,  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  there 
were  njultiiudes  of  churches  beside  those    who  were 
the  immediate  followers  of  Novatian,  in  nearly  all  the 
kingdoms  of   Europe  and  a  great    part  of   Asia,  that 
still  kept  the  ordinances  as  the  apostles  had  delivered 
them.      With    regaid    to  the  first   two  centuries  after 
the  apostles,  tliere  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  churches 
were  purely   Baptist.      Dr.  Moshiem,  a  violent  oppos- 
er  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  admits  that  "the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  was  administered  publicly  twice  eve- 
ry year,    at  the   festivals  of  Easter  and  Pentecost,  or 
Whitsunday,    by  the  Bishop   or  Presbyters,  in  conse- 
quence  of  his  authorization  and  appointment.      The 
persons  that  were  to  be  baptized,  after  ilicy  had  re- 
peated the  creed,  confessed  and  renounced  their  siris, 
and  particularly  the  devil  in  his  pompous  allurements, 
were  immersed  under  water,  and  received  into  Christ's 
kingdom  by  a  solemn  invocation  of  the  Father,    Son, 
and   Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  express  command 
of  our  blessed  Lord." — Eccl.  Hist.  cent.  2,  sec.  13. 


97 

Again.  "The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  admin- 
istered in  this  century  without  the  public  assembhes, 
in  places  appointed  and  prepared  for  the  purpose,  and 
was  performed  by  immersion  of  (he  vjhole  body  in 
the  baptismal  font." — MosheinCs  Ecc.  hist.  cent.  I,  'part 
2,  sec.  8. 

We  have  thus  hastily  traced  the  church  down  to  the 
apostolic  age,  and  find  that  although  we  are  now  sur- 
rounded by  many  denominations,  yet  they  are  of  so  re- 
cent origin,  that  previous  to  the  rise  of  Lutheranism, 
A.  D.  1517,  it  was  vastly  diiferent;  and  as  we  ap- 
proach the  apostolic  age,  their  number  appears  still 
less,  until  we  arrive  at  A.  D.  32.5,  when  the  first  gen- 
eral division  took  place  at  Alexandria,  respecting  the 
doctrine  of  Arius.  From  that  time,  down  to  the  or- 
ganization of  the  first  church  at  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  33, 
there  was  but  one  denomination,  which  has  since  been 
called  by  various  names :  First,  Disciples^  then 
Christians^  and  in  after  ages  several  nicknames,  as 
we  have  seen  ;  and  at  present  it  is  known  by  the  name 
of  the  Baptized  Churchy  to  distinguish  it  from  those 
churches  which  merely  sprinkle.  Thus  evident  it  is, 
that  the  Bible  and  impartial  history  sustain  our  claim 
to  apostolic  church  origin  ;  and  that  not  only  John 
Huss,  Jerome  of  Prague  and  John  Wickliff,  were  mar- 
tyrs of  our  church,  but  equally  demonstrates  that  Ig- 
natius, Clement,  Polycarp,  and  the  multitudes  who 
have  sealed  their  faith  with  their  blood  since  them, 
were  Baptists. 

We  should  keep  in  mind  that  nearly  every  question 
has  two  sides ;  and  while  the  controversy  between  us 
and  the  pedobaptists  respects  church  origin,  we  are 
happy  to  have  their  full  concession  that  they  are  re- 
cent dissenters  from  the  Roman  Catholics  ;  and  that 
the  Baptist  church  is  not  only  the  true  church  of  God, 
but  that  for  her  "  it  is  easy  to  trace  a  succession  ot 
9 


98 

witnesses  for  Jesus  Christ  against  his  rival  at  Rome." 
— Brown's  Bible  Dictionary ^  p.  152. 

There  are  four  kinds  of  Baptists  in  the  United  Slates,  and  the  Am.  Almanac  for 
1839 gives  the  following  statistics: 

Reifular  Baptists,  452,(X)0  communicants  ;  Free-will  do., 33,876;  7(h  day  do., 4,503; 
Six-principle  do  ,  2,117  :— Total  population,  4,300,000. 

Regular  Presbyterians,  274.034  communicants  ;  Cinnberland  do.,  50.000;  Asso- 
ciate do,  16,000;  Reformed  do.,  3,000;  Associate  Reformed  do.,  12,000 :— Total 
population,  2,175,000. 

Congregationalists,  160,000  communicants:— Population,  1,400,000 

Episcopal  Methodists,  650,103  communicants ;  Protestant  do.  50,00a-total  pop- 
ulation 3,000,000. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

SUBJECTS    OF   BAPTISM. 

SE  CT  10  N     I  . 

Of  Moral  and  Positive  Law. 

Moral  law  is  the  eternal  rule  of  right,  founded  in 
the  nature  and  fitness  of  things,  which  is,  was  and 
e\rer  will  be  binding  upon  all  rational  creatures,  wheth- 
er good  or  evil ;  a  summary  of  which  was  given  to 
Moses,  Ex.  XX.  3 — 17.  It  never  was  identified  with 
the  Mosaic  covenant,  though  like  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, it  existed  with  it;  and  when  Christ  came, 
it  was  not  abolished  with  the  ritual  services,  but  ex- 
plained and  enforced  by  the  precepts  and  examples  of 
the  Savior,  so  that  it  forms  a  great  part  of  the  gospel. 
Matt.  V.  17  :  xxiii.  23  :  John  vii.  19  :  Matt.  xxii.  36 
—40:  Lukex.  26— 28:  1  Cor.  xiii.  1  —  13.  This 
law  is  given  in  o:eneral  rules,  and  from  them  many  of 
our  particular  duties  are  inferred.  But  an  invariable 
rule  respecting  inferences  is,  that  we  are  never  to  do 
less  than  the  expressed  law  requires. 

Positive  law  differs  mostly  from  moral  in  these  four 
particulars : 


99 

1.  The  moral  law,  from  the  very  nature  of  it,  can 
never  be  revoked  ;  but  positive  law  may  be  abolished 
at  anytime.  But,  "  It  requires  the  same  strength  to 
dissolve  as  to  create  an  oblis^ation." — Blackstone's 
Commentary  on  the  Laws  of  England^  vol.  1,  hook 

1,  chapt.  2. 

2.  Positive  law  is  only  oblio^atory  on  the  persons 
immediately  referred  to,  and  expressed  in  the  law. 
Thus,  when  God  commanded  Abraham  to  circumcise 
every  man  child  born  in  his  house  and  bought  with 
his  money,  it  did  not  make  it  his  duty  to  circumcise 
all  the  females  and  gentiles  ;  so  v/hen  Christ  com- 
manded the  apostles  to  baptize  believers,  it  did  not 
authorize  them  to  baptize  infants  and  unbelievers. 
The  letter  of  positive  law  is  the  measure  of  our  duty. 

3.  Positive  law  does  not  originate  simply  in  the  na- 
ture and  fitness  of  things,  but  rests  solely  on  the  plai?i, 
expressed  will  of  God,  without  respect  to  any  other 
reason  for  it.  Thus  the  moral  law,  ^'■thoushalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God^^  and  the  reason  is  because  he  is 
infinitely  lovely;   and  the  positive  law  says,  Gen.  xxii. 

2,  "  Take  now  thy  son,  and  ofier  him  for  a  burnt  of- 
fering," Acts  ii.  38,  "  Be  baptized  ;"  and  the  reason  is 
because  God  commands  it, — and  the  time,  place  and 
instruments  must  be  expressed,  if  they  make  any  part 
of  the  service  required.  Thus,  Gen.  xxii.  2,  "  In  the 
land  of  Moriah,  upon  one  of  the  mountains  which  I 
will  tell  thee  of "  John  i.  33,  "He  that  sent  me  to 
baptize  (  qv  'vdaxt,  )  in  water."  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  "  Bap- 
tizing them." 

4.  Positive  law  d lifers  from  moral,  because  the  rule 
is  definite,  and  no  inference  drawn  from  it  can  make 
any  part  of  our  duty.  My  son  is  under  obligation  to 
reverence  me,  whether  I  command  him  to  or  not ; 
but  he  is  not  therefore  under  obligations  to  burn  up 
my  refuse  papers,  till  I  command  him ;    and  when  I 


100 

have  ordered  him  to  burn  them,  he  is  not  at  liberty  to 
infer  that  he  should  burn  my  hbrary  also. 

But,  this  view  of  moral  and  positive  law  is  not  a 
matter  of  difference  between  the  Baptists  and  pedobap- 
tists  ;  for  I  could  quote  hundreds  of  the  most  able  pe- 
dobaptist  authors  who  speak  as  definitely  as  the  fol- 
lowing: "The  positive  law  is  what  we  know  to  be 
the  will  of  God  by  his  express  word  onlyP — Reeve^s 
Apology,  vol.  2,  p.  2.  "  Positive  institutions  are  the 
free  effects  of  the  will  of  God,  depending  originally 
and  solely  on  revelation." — Dr.  Owen,  on  the  Holy 
tSpirit,  hook  l,chapt.  3,  sec.  3.  "  Sacraments  are  posi- 
tive precepts  which  are  to  be  measured  only  by  the  in- 
stitution, in  which  there  is  not  room  for  us  to  carry 
them  any  further." — Bp.  Burnetfs  Expos,  of  the  Ar- 
ticles, p.  279.  "Positive  precepts  depend  wholly  on 
the  will  of  the  lawgiver,  being  actually  limited  to  this 
specification,  this  manner,  this  matter,  this  institu- 
tion. Whatsoever  comes  besides  it  hath  no  founda- 
tion in  the  will  of  the  legislator,  and  therefore  can  have 
no  warrant  or  authority.  That  it  be  obeyed  or  not 
obeyed  is  the  question,  and  all  the  variety." — Dr. 
Dubit,  book  2,  chapt.  3,  sec.  14. 

"  What  man  dare  go  in  a  way  which  has  neither 
precept  nor  example,  from  a  way  that  has  a  full  cur- 
rent of  both.  Who  knows  what  will  please  Gcd,  but 
himself?  and  has  he  not  told  us  what  he  expects  from 
us?  Can  that  be  obedience  which  has  no  comm,and 
for  it  ? O  the  pride  of  man's  heart !  that  in- 
stead of  being  a  law-obeyer  will  be  a  law-maker. — / 
should  tremble  to  add  or  diminish." — R.  Baxter^s 
Plain  Scripture  Proofs,  p.  24. 

"A  catholic  spirit  is  not  speculative  latitudinari- 
anism.  It  is  not  an  indifference  to  all  opinions;  this 
is  the  spawn  of  hell,  not  the  offspring  of  heaven  ;  this 
unsettled  state  of  thought ;    this  being  driven  to  and 


101 

/Vo,  and  tossed  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine,  is  a 
preat  curse,  not  a  blessing.  A  man  of  a  true  catholic 
fpirit  does  not  lialt  between  two  opinions,  nor  vainly 
endeavor  to  blend  them  into  one.  Observe  this,  you 
that  know  not  what  spirit  you  are  of;  who  call  your- 
selves of  a  catholic  spirit  only  because  you  are  of  a 
muddy  understanding ;  you  think  you  are  got  into 
the  very  spirit  of  Christ,  when  in  truth  you  are  near- 
er the  spirit  of  Antichrist." — Rowland  HilVs  Full  Art- 
swer  to  J.    Wesley,  p.  40,  41. 

But  the  question  is  now  asked,  are  we  not  to  follow 
our  feelings  as  a  guide  ?  J  answer  yes,  if  they  agree 
with  the  Bible  ;  but  positive  law  must  be  obeyed,  at 
the  expense  of  all  feelings  beside.  Thus  Abraham  in 
offering  his  Isaac,  Gen.  xxii.  2 — 14,  and  thus  Christ 
taught,  Matt.  xix.  29,  '•  If  any  man  will  come  after  me, 
let  him  deny  himself  and  take  up  his  cross,"  <fec.,  but 
what  self-denial  is  there  in  following  your  own  feel- 
ings ? 

But  can  we  not  take  conscience  for  a  guide  ?  I  an- 
swer, what  is  conscience,  but  a  creature  of  education? 
The  Hindoo  mother  gives  her  infant  to  the  wheels  of 
Juggernaut  to  satisfy  her  conscience,  while  the  Chris- 
tian mother  would  act  exactly  opposite  to  please  hers. 
Thus  conscience  measures  our  actions,  and  declares 
them  good  or  bad,  in  view  of  some  received  rule ;  but 
in  order  to  have  a  good  conscience  we  must  take  God's 
word  for  the  standard.     Heb.   xiii.    18. 

But  are  we  not  to  follow  our  own  understanding  or 
reason?  I  answer,  the  use  of  these  in  religion  is  to 
discern  between  truth  and  error.  Eph.  v.  7,  "Where- 
fore be  not  unwise,  but  understanding  what  the  will 
of  the  Lord  is."  Pro  v.  iii.  5,  "  Trust  in  the  Lord 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  lean  not  unto  thine  own  tmder- 
standing."     Prov.  ix.  10 :  Job  xxviii.  28 :  xxxiv.  16. 

But  are  we  to  follow  the  Spirit  of  God?  I  answer 
yes,  Rom.  viii.  14,   "For  as  many  as  are  led  by  tb« 


102 

Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God."  But,  1  Cor. 
iii.  18,  "Let  no  man  deceive  himself."  1  John  iv.  1, 
"But  try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God  ;"  and 
as,  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  "All  scripture  is  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,"  and  is  a  complete  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, the  Bible  is  the  standard  by  which  we  are  to  try 
the  spirits  that  influence  us.     Isa.  viii.  20. 

But  it  is  plead  that  we  can  not  all  understand  the 
Bible  alike,  "it  is  an  essential  article  that  the  words 
of  the  laws  excite  in  every  body  the  same  ideas.  Tho 
laws  ought  not  to  be  subtle,  for  they  are  designed  for 
comm.on  understanding  ;  not  as  an  art  of  logic,  but  as 
the  plain  reason  of  a  father  to  a  family." — Barron 
Montesquieu^  Spirit  of  Laivs^  book  29,  p.  16. 

Now  is  it  probable  that  our  heavenly  Father  would 
give  us  laws  that  we  cannot  understand,  and  then  call 
us  to  an  account  for  disobedience?  See  Acts  xvii.  30; 
Lev.  iv.  2 :  and  v.  15 :  Isa.  liii.  8  :  Eph.  i  v.  18 :  1st  Cor. 
iii.  12 — 15:  John  vii.  17  :  the  confusion  concerning 
Baptism,  the  Lord  Supper  &c.,  exists  because  the  lea- 
ders have  taken  liberty  to  change  God's  ordinances, 
and  puzzle  the  people  with  sophistry. 

"The  Church  of  Rome  frankly  acknowledges,  by 
her  delegates  assembled  in  the  council  of  Trent,  that 
our  sovereign  Lord,  when  he  instituted  the  Holy  Sup- 
per, administered  in  both  kinds,  and  that  it  was  so  ad- 
ministered for  some  time.  She  however  expressly 
claims  an  authority  to  dispense  with  that  order."  See 
council  of  Trent,  Session  21,  Chapters  1--3. 

"Wherefore  the  church  did  g-reat  liberty  to  herself 
since  the  beginning,  to  change  the  rites  somewhat,  ex- 
cepting the  substance.  Some  dipped  them  thrice, 
gome  but  once;  wherefore  there  is  no  cause  why  we 
should  be  so  straight  laced  in  matters  which  are  of 
00  such  weight." — John  Calvin^s  comment  on  Acts 
▼iii.  38. 

"Every  particular  church  may  or<fai«,  change  ot 


103 

abolish  rites  and  ceremonies^  so  that  all  things  may  be 
done  to  edification." — Methodist  Epis.  Di^cvpliiie^ 
Article  of  Religion  22. 

"  The  heifer,  whose  ashes  were  to  make  the  waters  of 
Eeparation,  (Num.  xix.  2,)  the  color  was  no  circum- 
stance :  but,  made  by  God's  command  a  substantial 
part  of  the  service  ;   to  be  red  was  as  much  as  to  be  a 

heifer for  though  the  things  in  themselves  be  small, 

yet  His  authority  is  great.  If  any  of  Christ's  institu- 
tions seem  necessary  to  be  broken,  it  will  be  necessary- 
first,  to  decry  them  as  'poor^  low,  inconsiderable,  cir- 
cumstantial, and  fill  the  people's  heads  with  a  noise 
and  din  that  Christ  lays  little  stress  on  them;  and  in 
order  hereto,  call  them  non-essentials,  the  accidentals, 
the  Tninutes,  so  that  the  conscience  may  not  kick  at 
contemning  them." — Vincent  Ahop^s  Sober  Enquiry, 
p.  289. 

"Positive  duties  stand  on  a  moral  foot.     To  obey 
God,  in  whatever  he  commands  is  the  first  moral  law, 
and  the  fundamental  principle  of  allmorality." — Dr^ 
Waterland's  Scripture  Vindication  part  3.  p.  37. 


SECTION      II. 

I  HAVE  been  amused  to  see  how  pedobaptists  at- 
tempt to  prove  their  scheme.  They  will  first  affirm 
that  infant  sprinkling  is  laioful;  when  we  tell  them 
that  the  Pope  has  no  control  over  this  land,  and  that 
the  law  of  New  England  which  enforced  pedobaptism 
is  repealed,  therefore  this  argument  is  not  adapted  io 
this  country,  they  will  then  assert  that  the  Scriptures 
prove  infant  sprinkling  right.  Thus,  the  word  in- 
fant is  found  at  Isa.  Ixv.  20  :  Job  iii.  16 :  and  Luko 
xviii.  15  :  and  Sprinkle  at  Ex.  ix.  8  :  Ez.  xxxvi.  25  : 
and  Heb.  x.  22  :  and  the  word  right  at  Gen.  xviii.  25  : 
and  Amos  v.  xii :    therefore  the  Bible  proves  Infant 


104 

sprinkling  right.  They  will  next  assert^  infanis 
are  church  members,  and  therefore  subjects  of  bap>- 
tism  ;  and  to  prove  this,  they  say,  that  infants  by  God's 
ftppointment,  were  made  members  of  the  Jewish 
church  ;  and  the  law,  authorizing  their  membership, 
has  not  been  abrogated.  This  argument  reminds  rao 
of  Mr.  John  Cotton's*  reply  to  Roger  Williams  ;  Aboul 
A.  D.  1651  Mr.  Williams  complaintd  of  the  deadly 
persecutions  that  he  was  suiferi ng  from  Mr.  Cotton, 
ftnd  said  that  the  civil  sword  was  not  appointed  as  a 
remedy  in  such  cases:  to  which  Mr.  Cotton  replied, 
'*It  is  evident  that  the  civil  sword  was  appointed  as  a 
remedy  in  this  case,  Deut.  xiii,  and  appointed  it  was 
by  the  Angel  of  God's  presence,  whom  God  promised 
lo  send  with  his  people,  Ex.  xxxiii.  2 — 3,  and  that 
Angel  was  Christ,  1st  Cor.  x.  9,  therefore  it  cannot  be 
said  that  the  Lord  Jesus  never  appointed  the  civil 
eword  as  a  remedy  in  such  cases,  for  he  did  expressly 
appoint  it  in  the  Old  Testament,  wor  did  he  ever  abro- 
gate it  in  the  New.  Thou  shalt  svrely  kill  him  be- 
cause he  hath  sought  to  thrust  thee  away  from  the 
Lord  thy  God.  This  reason  is  moral,  that  is,  of  uni- 
versal and  perpetual  equity,  to  put  to  death  any  apos- 
tate, seducing  idolater  or  heretic." — Backus'  History^ 
Vol  I,  p.  165,166. 

This  is  the  very  course  that  Mr.  Sawyer  has  taken 
to  prove  sprinkling  and  infant  church  membership; 
for  thus  he  says,  "Moses  adopted  washing  as  a  Jew- 
ish rite,  and  John  the  Baptist  adopted  the  same  Mo- 
saic washing:.  The  seal  of  the  Ahrahamic  covenant 
was  circumcision,  and  not  only  Abraham,  but  his 
seed  were  initiated  into  the  church  by  it.  Paul  bap- 
tized disciples,  and  Christ  took  little  children  in  his 
arms  and  blessed  them.  The  church  under  the  Old 
Testament  economy,  recognized  their  infants  as  mem- 
bers, and  infant  church  membership  has  not  been  alh 

*A  celebrated  Cougrcfatloaal  miaiater. 


105 

rogated  in  the  New ;  therefore  infant  baptism  i» 
fully  proved.*'  When  Mr.  Sawyer  takes  Mr.  Cotton's 
civil  sword,  and  compels  us  to  believe  his  logic  sounds 
we  shall  say  amen,  to  his  assertions,  and  not  before. 
Take  a  parallel  to  Messrs.  Cotton  and  Sawyer's  argu- 
ments ;  Mark  X.  13 — 16.  They  broug^ht  young  chil- 
dren to  Christ,  and  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms  and 
blessed  them,  (which  must  have  been  done  by  speak- 
ing to  them  ;)  but  Jesus  Christ  was  God ;  Isa.  ix.  6  : 
and  John  x.  35,  he  called  them  Gods  unto  whom  the 
word  of  God  came.  What  must  each  of  these  chil- 
dren have  been  therefore  ?  But  few  men  are  sensible 
how  far  asjibile  infidel,  or  a  designmg  learned  Chris- 
tian can  wrest  the  Scriptures  without  detection,  until 
they  have  carefully  compared  their  writings  with  the 
inspired  text. 


SECTION      III. 

The  Baptism  of  John. 

1.  The  testimony  of  our  Lord. 

John  i.  6,  "  There  was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose 
name  was  John."  Luke  iii.  3,  "And  he  came  into  all 
the  country  about  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance for  the  remission  of  sins."  Mark  i.  1,  2,  "  The 
beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
as  it  is  written  in  the  prophets,  behold  I  send  my  mes- 
senger before  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  thy  way 
before  thee."  Matt,  iii.  5,  6,  "  Then  went  out  to  him 
Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  the  region  round  about 
Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confess- 
ing their  sins."  John  well  understood  his  commis- 
sion ;  he  was  sent  to  prepare  a  people  for  the  Lord, 
(i.  e.  for  the  Lord's  church.)  He  therefore,  in  accord- 
ance with  his  commission,  required  of  the  people 
1.  Confession  of  sin.  Matt.  iii.  6  :  Mark,  i.  5.  2.  Re- 
pentance.     Matt.  iii.  2  ;    Mark  i.  4  :    Luke  iii.  8,  &c. 


106 

3.  Faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  Actsxix.  4  :  Matt.  iii.  11 : 
Marki.  7, 8  :  Luke  iii.  15—18  :  Actsxiii.  25  :  John  i.  29  : 
Mark  i.  15,  &c.  And  those  who  would  not  comply 
with  these  conditions  he  did  not  baptize,  but  rebuked 
them  sharply  for  offering  themselves  as  candidates  for 
baptism,  while  unprepared.  Matt.  iii.  7 — 12  :  Luke  iii. 
7 — 14.  But.  with  these  facts  before  him,  Mr.  Sawyer 
says,  p.  2,  "  Whether  the  children  of  believers  were  in- 
cluded with  their  parents  among  the  subjects  of  John's 
baptism,  we  are  not  particularly  informed  ;"  but  if 
Mr.  Sawyer  has  failed  to  discover  that  infants  are  not 
capable  of  faith^  rapentance^  and  confession  of  sin^  I 
am  happy  that  many  of  his  pedobaptist  brethren  have 
honestly  confessed  that  all  the  subjects  of  John's  bap- 
tism were  adult  Christians.  I  could  quote  hundreds, 
but  these  few  must  suffice. 

2.   Pedobaptist  testimony. 

"  John  Baptist  admitted  men  to  baptism,  confessing 
and  bevvaihno^  their  sins." — Cambridge  Platform^ 
chapt.  12,  sec.  2. 

^^  Adult  Jews,  professing  repentance,  and  a  disposi- 
tion to  become  Messiah's  subjects,  were  the  only  per- 
sons, as  far  as  we  can  find,  whom  John  admitted  to 
his  baptism." — Dr.  Scotfs  Family  Bible. 

"  ORiGENsays  we  ought  necessarily  to  observe  that 
both  St,  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  say  that  upon  confes- 
sion of  their  sins,  all  Jerusalem,  (fee,  were  baptized." 
— Dr.  GaWs  Reflections^  j)-  '^^^' 

The  disinterested  testimony  of  the  great  Jewish  his- 
torian  is  important:  "John,  that  was  called  the  Bap- 
tist, was  a  good  m.an,  and  commanded  the  Jews  to  ex- 
ercise virtue,  both  as  to  righteousness  toward  one  an- 
other and  piety  toward  God,  and  so  to  come  to  bap- 
tism- ;  for  that  the  washing  would  be  acceptable  to 
Him,  if  they  made  use  of  it,  not  in  order  to  the  put- 
ting away  of  some  sins,  but  for  the  purification  of  the 


107 

body,  supposmg  still  that  the  soul  loas  thoroughly 
purified  heforehayid  by  righteousness." — Josephus' 
Antiquities^  book  18,  chapt.  5,  sec,  2. 


SECTION       IV. 

The  Baptism  of  our  Savior. 

That  the  Lord  was  baptized  is  evident,  from  Matt, 
iii.  13—17  :  Mark  i.  9—12 :  Luke  iii.  21,  22  :  John 
i.  31 — 34.  Thus  we  have  the  Savior's  example  in 
this  institution  ;  but  it  is  abundantly  evident  that  he 
never  did  practice  baptism,  from  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
record  of  it,  and  because  the  Holy  Spirit  says  express- 
ly, John  iv.  2,  "  Jesus  himself  baptized  not''^  This 
is  fatal  to  all  the  pedobaptist  volumes  written  to  prove 
that  Christ  baptized  infants  ;  and  as  Dr.  Taylor  says, 
when  remarking  upon  Matt.  xix.  13 — 15 :  Mark  x. 
13 — 16:  Luke  xviii.  15 — 17,  "Using  these  words  to 
prove  infant  baptism,  proves  nothing  so  much  as  the 
want  of  a  better  argument." — Dr.  Jeremy  Taylor. 

Having  noticed  the  example  and  practice  of  the 
Lord,  we  pass  to  his  comm^ands.  ^  Matthew  xxviii. 
19,  20,  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  Markxvi. 
16,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved, 
but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned."  The  last 
dying  words  of  a  friend,  sink  deep  into  the  hearts  of 
survivors.  The  Savior  regarding  this  fact,  purposely 
reserved  the  law  of  preaching  and  baptizing,  for  the 
last,  and  with  well  selected  words,  arranged  in  an  or- 
der which  strictly  agrees  with  the  gospel  economy, 
he  pronounced  the  command^  and  ascended  to  his 
throne  in  the  heavens.      I  am   happy  that  Mr.  Saw- 


108 

yer  has  saved  his  friends  from  that  mortification  which 
they  must  have  felt,  had  he  attempted  to  prove  infant 
baptism  from  this  scripture.  He  frankly  says,  (p.  6.) 
"The^r5^  thing  commanded,  is  io  j)roselyte  all  na- 
tions to  the  Christian  religion.  The  second  is  to  hajj- 
tize  them,  and  the  third  and  last  thing,  here  enjoined 
is,  to  teach  them  to  observe  all  the  ordinances  of 
Christ.''  "  The  action  is  baptizing  or  immersing  in 
water.  The  subjects  thereof,  those  persons  of  every 
nation,  whom  the  ministers  can  by  their  instructions, 
render  disciples,  that  is,  such  as  do  sincerely  believe 
the  truth." — Dr,  Barrow^s  works,  Vol.  1  p.  518. 

.  "  In  the  primitive  church,  instruction  preceded  bap- 
tism, agreeable  to  the  order  of  Jesus  Christ,  go  teach 
unto  all  nations,  baptizing  them." — Saurin^s  Sermoiis^ 
vol  1,  p.  SOI. 

"  Because  Christ  requires  teaching  before  baptism, 
and  will  have  believers  only  adm^iittd  to  baptism^ 
baptism  does  not  seem  to  be  rightly  administered  ex- 
cept faith  precedes." — John  Calvin,  Harmony  of  the 
Evangelists. 

*'They  could  not  make  disciples  unless  by  teach- 
ing. By  that  institution  were  disciples  brought  to  the 
faith  before  they  were  baptized." — Limborch^s  Insti- 
tutes, chapt.  67,  p.  7. 

"  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  Go  ye,  threfore,  &c.  This  is  not 
like  some  occasional  historical  mention  of  baptism,but  is 
the  very  commission  of  Christ  to  his  apostles,  and  pur- 
posely expresseth  their  several  works  in  their  several 
places  and  orders.  The  first  work  is  by  teaching  to 
make  disciples,  which  are  called  by  Mark,  xvi.  16,  6c- 
lievers.  Their  second  work  is  to  baptize  them;  the 
third  work  is  to  teach  them  all  other  things  which  are 
to  be  learned  in  the  school  of  Christ.  To  contemn 
this  order,  is  to  renounce  all  rules  of  order  ;  for  where 
can  we  expect  to  find  it  if  not  here.    I  profess  my  coti- 


109 

science  fully  satisfied  from  this  ie:sJ.  that  it  is  one  sort 
of  faith,  evsn  savings  that  must  go  before  baptism." — 
Baxter's  Disp.  of  right  to  sacraments^  pp.  149,  150. 

"  A  limited  commission  implies  a  prohibition  of 
such  things  as  are  not  contained  in  it,  and  positive 
laws  imply  their  negative." — Appendix  to  Walkers 
Debate,  p.  209. 

Therefore,  when  the  Lord  commanded  his  disci- 
ples to  baptize  believers,  and  the  commission  ceasing 
there,  it  was  precisely  the  same  as  forbidding  them  to 
baptize  infants  and  unbelievers ;  and  Abraham  could 
as  well  expect  to  please  God  by  circumcising  females, 
or  infants  before  they  were  eight  days  old,  as  pedo- 
baptists  by  sprinkling  infants  before  they  believe  m 
Christ. 

But  the  question  arises,  was  John's  baptism  and 
Christian  baptism  the  same.  Pedobaptists  have  as- 
serted that  they  were  not,  because  they  know  that 
John  uniformly  immersed ;  therefore  they  try  to  de- 
stroy his  baptism  altogether,  that  there  may  be  less 
scripture  to  oppose  their  sprinkling.  Thus  Mr.  Saw- 
yer asserts,  p.  2,  3,  "  The  first  notice  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, and  all  the  notice  of  it  which  occurs  in  the 
gospel  history  previous  to  the  crucifixion,  is  in  the  fol- 
lowing passages  :  John  iii.  22 — 26  :  John  iv.  1,  2." 
Now  what  a  shameless  statement  this  is  ;  that  Chris- 
tian baptism,  which  derived  both  its  existence  and 
name  from  Jesus  Christ,  did  not  exist  until  adminis- 
tered by  the  disciples,  long  after  the  Lord  was  baptiz- 
ed. The  identity  of  Christian  and  John's  baptism  is 
evident  from  Scripture ;  see  Matt.  xi.  7 — 15  :  Mark 
i.  1—8  :  Luke  iii.  3—6 :  Acts  i.  21—23  :  Rom.  vi.  4,  5  : 
Eph.  iv.  3 — 6 :  Col.  ii.  12 ;  and  is  conceded  by  able 
pedobaptists.  "  By  this  he  intended  to  do  an  honor  to 
John's  ministry,  and  conform,  himself  to  what  he  ap- 
pointed to  his  followers." — Dr.  Doddridge^s  Note  on 


110 

"In  John's  preaching  and  baptizing^  there  was 
the  beginnina:  of  the  gospel  doctrines  d^na  ordinances, 
and  the  first  fruits  of  them." — Dr,  M.  Henry's  Com- 
ment on  Mark  i.  1. 

"It  is  certain  that  the  ministry  of  John  was  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  that  which  was  afterward  commit- 
ted to  the  apostles. The  sameness  of  their  doc- 
trine shows  their  baptism  to  have  been  the  same.  I 
grant  that  the  baptism  which  they  (the  twelve,  at  Acts 
xix.  1 — 7,)  had  receix^ed  was  the  true  baptism  of  John, 
and  the  very  same  with  the  baptism  of  Christ ;  but 
I  deny  that  they  were  baptized  again." — Calvin's  In- 
stitutes^ book  4,  chapt.  15,  sec.  7,  8. 

"  I  must  say  a  few  words  in  support  of  the  identity 
of  these  baptisms.  The  baptism  of  John  and  the  bap- 
tism of  Christ  were  the  same  in  their  divine  origin  ; 
and  the  same  as  it  respects  the  element,  and  the  mode 
of  applying  it.  In  both,  the  parties  baptized  did  pro- 
fess their  faith  in  Christ ;  Acts  xix.  4,  and  also  their 
repentance,  Luke  iii.  3.  The  baptism  of  John  was 
the  baptism  of  the  gospel.  It  v/as  in  practice  after 
'  the  beginning  of  the  gospel.'  Mark  i.  1.  It  testified 
of  Christ  actually  come.  The  Prophets  prophesied, 
and  the  ceremonial  law  was  in  force  until  John^  Matt, 
xi.  13.  In  him  they  were  fulfilled.  And  in  him,  of 
course,  the  shadows  ceased.  Hence  it  is  obvious  that 
John's  baptism  was  a  New  Testament  rite.  But  the 
baptism  of  the  New  Testament  "is one,"  Eph.  iv.  5. 
Therefore  the  baptism  of  John  and  of  Christ  are  the 
same.  Some  critics  have  conceived  that  they  have 
discovered  proofs  of  John's  disciples  having  again 
been  baptized.  But  there  is  no  evidence  of  this  in 
the  New  Testament.  In  Acts  xix.  1 — 6,  the  inquiry 
which  St.  Paul  made  of  the  disciples  was  not  whether 
they  were  baptized,  but  whether  *  they  had  received 
the  Holy  Ghost'  i.  e.  in  his  miraculous  gifts,  since 
they  believed.     Water  baptism  was  not  the  subject  of 


Ill 

the  conference  ;  and,  upon  hearing  their  answer  that 
'■  they  had  not  so  much  as  heard  of  the  outpouring  of 
the  Holy  Ghosty^  Paul  laid  his  hands  upon  them  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  came  upon  them.  The  5th  verse  is 
not  a  part  of  the  narrative  of  St.  Luke.  It  is  the  con- 
tinuation of  St.  Paul's  address  ;  and  what  his  disci- 
ples did.  '  Whe7i  they^' the  disciples  of  John,  ^  heard 
ihis^'  i.  e.  .John's  doctrine  respecting  Christ,  '  they 
were  baptized,''  i.  e.  by  John,  ^  in  the  name  of  Christ.'' 
Tiiis  is  the  opinion  of  the  ablest  critics  and  fathers  of 
the  reformation.  Turretine  on  the  indentity  of  the 
two  baptisms,  vol.  3,  p.  444.  Ber.  de  Moore,  vol.  v, 
pp.  396—402:  vol.  vi.  p.  802  ;  and  on  the  last  point 
see  Tar.  iii.  p.  448.  Beza  Marnixius,  Coccius,  &c. 
J.  Mark,  Medul.  and  Comp.  in  B.  D.  Moore,  vol.  v. 
p.  401,  &-C.,  who  gives  Mark's/oz/?'  arguments  against 
the  anabaptism  of  John^s  disciples. 

Dile?nma  1.  'If  the  baptism  of  John  was  not  the 
baptism  of  the  New  Testament,  then  our  Lord  was 
not  baptized — and  hence  he  wanted  that  toward  the 
New  Testament  church,  v/hich,  by  circumcision,  he 
had  toward  the  Old  Testament  church. 

2.  '  Hence  the  argument  of  St.  Paul  is  evaded,  One- 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,'  Our  Lord  had  not  one 
of  the  bonds  of  union  and  communion  said  here  to  ex- 
ist between  each  saint  and  himself. 

3.  '  Hence  there  can  be  no  meaning  in  our  Lord's 
words  when  he  came  to  be  baptized.  If  not  of  the 
New  Testament,  it  could  not  be  a  part  of  his  right- 
eousness to  be  fulfilled.'  See  also  Dr.  Lightfoot,  vol. 
1,  p.  467." — Dr.  Wm.  C.  Broionlee,  work  against  the 
religious  principles  of  the  Quakers. 

Such  is  the  langaage  of  the  loell  informed  'part  of 
the  pedobaptist  community;  and  thus  clear  itis,from 
reason  and  revelation,  that  Christian  baptism  is  the 
same,  whether  administered- by  John  the  Baptist,  Paul 
the  apostle,  or  a  Christian  niinister  of  the  19th  century. 


112 


SECTION     V. 


The  baptism  of  the  Apostles, 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  written  by  Luke,  is  the 
first  book  of  Baptist  church  history,  and  of  course,  it 
is  needless  to  look  for  any  intimations  of  infant  bap- 
tism here  ;  for  "  they  baptized  only  the  adult  or  aged, 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whereof  we  have  instances 
in  Acts  ii,,  viii.,  x.,  xvi.,  and  xix. ;  but  as  to  the  bap- 
tizing of  infants,  we  have  no  example.  As  to  the 
manner  of  baptizing,  it  was  by  dipping  or  plunging 
into  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  allusions  con- 
tained in  Rom,  vi.  and  Col.  ii." — Magdeburg  Centu- 
riators. 

The  first  account  of  baptism  administered,  except- 
ing by  John  the  Baptist,  is  at  John  iii.  22 — 26,  and  iv. 
1,  2.  With  reference  to  these  passages,  Mr.  Sawyer 
says,  paoe  3,  that  "  nothing  is  said  respecting  the  chil- 
dren of  believers,  and  the  oinission  of  any  notice  of 
them^'^  &c.  The  next  passage  noticed  by  Mr.  Sawyer 
is  Acts  ii.  37 — 40,  by  which  he  thinks  infant  baptism 
is  sustained  ;  but  he  has  evidently  mistaken  the  sense 
of  the  text  in  the  following  particulars. 

1.  He  wholly  mistakes  the  meaning  of  the  word 
children^  in  the  39th  verse ;  Tex^ot?  js  ^  noun  derived 
from  the  verb  'f^^^'^,  and  is  the  dative  plural  of  li^vov. 
That  it  does  not  mean  infants,  is  clear,  from  the  fol- 
lowing facts.  The  Greeks  have  three  words  which 
they  use  with  reference  to  their  posterity,  ^Q^^posj^i^babe) 
see  Luke  i.  41,  44,  and  Luke  ii.  12,  16  ;  ^ot^^^ov  [child) 
see  Matthew  ii.  8,  and  Johu  xxi.  5  ;  and  ti^vov{son  or 
daughter,)  the  meaning  of  which  can  be  learned  from 
those  texts  where  it  is  used.  See  Matt.  x.  21 :  xv. 
26 :  xxi.  28  :  Mark  vii.  27  :  x.  24 :  xiii.  12 :  Luke  i.  17 : 
ii.  48  :  xv.  31 :  Acts  ii.  39  :  v.  21 :  2  Cor.  vi.  13  :  Eph. 
ri.  1 :    Col.  iii.  20  :    1  Thess.  ii.  11  :    Titus  i.  6  :    2 


113 

John  i.  4.  Now  every  English  scholar  can  see  that 
Mr.  Sawyer  was  mistaken  in  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
and  all  learned  pedobaptists  are  against  hina.  "  By 
rixvoc  the  Apostle  understands,  not  infants,  but  children 

or  posterity. Whence  it  appears  that  the  argument 

which  is  very  commonly  taken  from  this  passage  for 
the  baptism  of  infants,  is  of  no  force,  and  good  for 
nothing,  because  it  certaiuly  departs  from  the  design 
of  Peter." — Limhorch's  Comment  on  Acts  ii.  39. 

"If  any  have  made  use  of  that  very  unconcludent 
argument,  (Acts  ii.  39,)  I  have  nothing  to  say  in  de- 
fense of  them,  I  think  that  the  word  children  there, 
is  really  the  fosterity  of  the  Jews,  and  not  peculiarly 
their  infant  children." — Dr.  Hammond's  Works.  Vol. 
I,  p.  490. 

"  The  opinion  of  those  who  maintain  that  the  Jew- 
ish rites  were  adopted  every  where  in  the  Ghristiaa 
churches,  by  order  of  the  apostles  or  their  disciples, 
is  destitute  of  all  foundation." — Moshiem'S  Ch.  Hist., 
Part  1,  Cha'pt.  4. 

Mr.  Sawyer's  second  error  has  reference  to  the 
promised  blessing.  He  would  make  it  read,  "for  the 
promise  of  baptis?n  is  to  you  and  your  children, "where- 
as the  Spirit's  sanctifyin,o;  and  saving  influences  are 
evidently  meant.  "  Considering  that  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  had  been  mentioned  just  before,  it  seems  most 
natural  to  interpret  this  as  a  reference  to  that  passage 
in  Joel,  which  had  been  so  largely  cited  above,  verses 
17,  &C.J  where  God  promised  the  effusions  of  the  Spir- 
it on  his  sons  and  daughters." — Dr.  Doddridge's  note 
on  Acts  ii.  39. 

"  These  words  will  not  prove  a  right  of  infants  to 
receive  baptism,  the  promise  here  being  that  of  the 
Holy  Ghov-st,  mentioned  ver.  16 — 18  ;  and  so  relating 
to  the  times  of  the  miraculous  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  to  those  persons  who  by  age  were  made 
10* 


114 

capable  of  these  extraordinary  gifts."— Dr.  Whitley, 
Annot.  on  Acts  ii.  39. 

The  third  mistake  of  Mr.  Sawyer  is  that  he  makes 
the  word  call,  in  the  text,  to  mean  simply  hearing  the 
gospel  preached,  p.  7,  "  all,  however  remote,  to  whvm 
the  gospel  tnay  he  preached  ;"  whereas  the  word  call 
is  used  here  in  the  same  sense  as  at  Romans  viii.  30. 
"Moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also 
called^  and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified,  and 
whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified."  See  also 
Rom.  i.  6  :  viii.  28:  ix.  24  :  1  Cor.  i.  24.  "  To  this 
general,  the  following  limitation  must  refer :  Even 
as  many  of  them,  as  many  particular  persons  in  each 
nation,  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call  effectually  into 
fellowship  of  Jesus  Christ.'^ — Dr.  M,  Henry,  Expos. 
of  Acts  ii.  39. 

"Baptism  is,  as  it  were,  the  appendix  to  faith,  and 
therefore  posterior  in  order  ;  and  then  if  it  be  admin- 
istered without  ftuth,  of  which  it  is  a  seal,  it  is  both 
an  injurious  and  gross  profanation." — John  Calvin, 
Comment,  on  Acts  viii.  36. 

I  would  say  it  pleasantly,  yet  I  do  say  it  positively y 
that  Mr.  Sawyer  knew  he  was  not  giving  the  true 
sense  of  Acts  ii.  37 — 40.  Will  he  baptize  all  who 
ever  heard  him  "  preach  the  gospel .?"  If  not,  he  con- 
demns his  own  theory. 

Mr.  Sawyer  lays  much  stress  on  the  three  house- 
hold baptisms,  which  he  names,  Acts  xvi.  25 — 34, 
the  Jailor,  Acts  xvi  14—15  Lydia,  and  1st  Corr.  i.  16 
Stephanas ;  but  as  believing  precedes  baptism,  we 
shall  deviate  a  little  from  his  course,  and  inquire  firs* 
for  household  faith.  The^r^^  household  of  faith  thaf 
we  shall  mention,  is  that  of  Zacharias,  Luke  i.  5 — 7, 
"  and  they  were  both  righteous  before  God;"  the  sec- 
ond is  at  John  iv.  53,  "And  himself  believed,  and  his 
whole  house ;"  the  third  is  at  John  xi.  5,  "  Now  Jesus 


115 

lo/ed  Martha  and  her  sister  Mary  and  Lazarus  ;"  the 
fourth  is  that  of  Cornelius,  Acts  x.  2,  and  xi.  14,  "  A 
devout  man,  and  one  that  feared  God  with   all  his 

house Thou  and  all  thy  house  shall  be  saved." 

"  In  the  first  plantation  of  Christianity  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, such  only  as  were  of  full  age,  after  they  were  in- 
structed in  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  were 
admitted  to  baptism."  See  Wall's  Hist,  of  Infant  bap- 
tism, Vol.  2,  Chapt.  2,  Sec.  14. 

The  fifth,  is  at  Actsxvi.  14—40.  "Lydia,  a  seller 
of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  wliich  worshiped 

God and  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia;   and 

when  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted 
them."  "Whether  she  was  a  Jewess  or  Gentile  we 
know  not ;  but  she  and  her  family  being  converted 
to,  and  baptized  in  the  Christian  faith,  Paul  upon  her 
entreaty,  lodged  at  her  house.  Acts  xvi.  14 — 40." — ^ 
Brown^s  Bible  Dictionary,  at  Lydia. 

"  Whose  heart  the  Lord  opened  ;  as  she  was  a  sin- 
cere worshiper  of  God,  she  was  prepared  to  recieve 
the  heavenly  truths  spoken  by  Paul  and  his  compan- 
ion ;  she  believed  them,  and  received  them  as  the  doc- 
trines of  God ;  and  in  this  faith,  she  was  joined  by 
her  whole  family,  and  in  it  they  were  all  baptized. — 
Dr.  A.  Clark's  comment  on  Acts  xvi. 

The  sixth,  is  that  of  the  Jailor,  Acts  xvi.  25 — 34, 
who  "  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house  ;" 
''  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his." 

"  Luke  commends  the  pious  zeal  of  the  jailor,  be- 
cause he  dedicated  his  whole  house  to  the  Lord,  ia 
which  also  the  grace  of  God  illustriously  appeared, 
because  it  suddenly  brought  the  whole  family  to  a 
pious  consent." — John  Calvin's  com^ment  on  Acts  xvi. 
35—34. 

"  There  was  none  in  the  house  that  refused  to  be 
baptized,  and  so  made  a  jar  in  the  ceremony;  but  they 
were  unanimous  in  embracing  the  gospel^  w^hich  added 


116 

much  to  the  joy." — Dr.  M.  Henry's  comment  on  Acts 
xvi.  25—34. 

"  Receiving  instruction  embraced  this  doctrine,  and 
showed  the  sincerity  of  their  faith  by  immediately 
receiving  baptism." — Dr.  A.  Clark's  comment  on  Acts 
xvi.  25—34. 

The  seventh  household  of  faith,  is  at  Acts  xviii.  8  ; 
'•And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  believ- 
ed on  the  Lord,  with  all  his  house." 

The  eighth,  is  that  of  Acts  xviii.  2 — 26  ;  "Aquila, 
born  in  Pontas,  lately  come  from  Italy  with  his  wife 
PrisciHa- — -whom  when  Aqiiila  and  Priscilla  had 
heard,  they  took  him  Unto  them,  and  expounded  unto 
him  the  way  of  God." 

"  They  took  him  (ApoUos)  with  them  to  their  house 
and  there  explained  to  him  the  way  of  God,  in  a  more 
complete  and  perfect  manner." — Dr.  Doddridge's 
comment  on  Acts  xviii.  26. 

The  ninth  is  at   1   Cor.  i.   16:  xvi.   15:   "And  I 

baptized  the  household  of  Stephanas ye  know  the 

house  of  Stephanos,  that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia, 
and  that  they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry 
of  the  saints." 

"And  I  further  beseech  you,  my  brethren,  that  for 
as  much  as  ye  know  the  household  of  Stephanas,  that 
it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  he  and  they  being 
among  the  first  that  were  converted  to  Christianity  in 

all  your  country this  sfeems  to  imply  that  it  was 

the  generous  care  of  the  whole  family,  to  assist  their 
fellow  Christians;  so  that  there  was  not  a  member  of 
it,  which  did  not  do  his  part." — Dr.  Doddridge'' s  com- 
ment and  note  on  1  Cor.  xvi.  15. 

Now  Mr.  Sawyer  thinks  that  three  of  the  above 
named  families  were  baptized.  Well  sir,  suppose  they 
all  were  ;  did  they  do  more  than  their  duty  ?  There 
are  now  eleven  whole  households  of  communicants  in 
the  First  Baptized  Church  in  this  city,  which  are  two 


117 

more  than  we  find  in  the  Bible,  except  there  were 
whole  families  baptized  with  the  5000  men,  Acts  iv.  4. 

Driven  to  the  last  extremity,  Mr.  Sawyer  has  con- 
fessed, pp.  2,  3,  that  there  is  no  scripture  precept  or  ex- 
ample for  infant  baptism  ;  and  to  gloss  his  opposite 
assertions,  he  attempts  to  make  out  a  warrant  for  the 
practice,  with  the  following  beggarly  arguments  :  p.  3, 
"  The  incidental  manner  in  which  the  subject  (bap- 
tism) is  referred  to,  and  the  brevity  of  the  reference, 
preclude  the  mention  of  infants.''  But  v/hy  were  the 
Scriptures  made  so  contracted  ?  It  could  not  have 
been  for  the  want  of  ink,  paper,  or  time,  that  they 
made  but  such  incidental  and  limited  records  of  bap- 
tism ;  for  the  ordinance  is  spoken  of  72  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  the  word  infant,  including  its 
eorrelatives,  occurs  627  times  in  the  Bible.  Thus, 
child  81  times,  children  391,  sucklings  7,  babe  13,  in- 
fants 5,  offspring  11,  seed  119  ;  and  in  each  of  these 
627  places,  the  subject  matter  of  record  is  of  less  im- 
portance than  Mr.  Sawyer  makes  infant  baptism,  when 
he  says,  p.  19,  "  The  blessings  of  that  covenant  (of 
grace)  qxq  forfeited  by  a  neglect  to  practice  infant  bap- 
tism." 

It  is  a  reasonable  thought,  that  in  the  hundreds  of 
instances  where  these  words  are  used,  even  chants 
would  have  thrown  infant  and  baptism  together,  had 
not  design  kept  them  asunder;  but  no  such  instance 
occurs.  When  children  are  meant  to  be  included  in 
commands,  or  the  narration  of  facts,  they  are  expressly 
mentioned.  See  Deut.  ii.  34:  xxxi.  12:  1st  Sam. 
XV.  3  :  xxii.  19  :  Est.  iii.  13 :  viii.  11 :  Jer.  xl.  7  :  Matt. 
X.  21 :  xiv.  21.  But  where  children  are  not  included 
they  are  not  mentioned.  See  Ex.  xxxv.  22 :  Acts  i. 
14:  V.  U:  viii.  3—12  :  ix.  2 :  xiii.  50:  xvii.  4— 12: 
xxii.  4.  Had  Luke  been  a  pedobaptist,  he  would  have 
said,  Acts  viii.  12,  "  They  were  baptized,  both  men 
and  women,"  (and  children,)  and  the  brevity  of  the  re  • 


118 

fereace  would  not  have  prevented,  if  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  thus  dictated.  It  is  therefore  obvious,  that  God 
has  immutably  separated  the  words  infant  and  baptism. 

Another  of  Mr.  Sawyer's  arguments  is,  pp.  18,  19, 
that  God  gave  to  Jewish  infants  the  rite  of  circumcis- 
ion, therefore  there  must  be  a  corresponding  rite  to 
our  inmnts.  "  But  for  that  idnd  of  arguing,  ihat  God 
has  been  wanting  tons  in  his  institutions,  if  he  has  not 
instituted  this  or  that,  and  therefore  he  has  instituted 
it,  i  leave  to  those  whose  conclusions  need  it ;  very 
much  desiring  them  to  consider  what  a  cause  that 
must  be,  which  drives  them  to  such  hold  reasonings 
as  these  are." — Dr.  Claggefs  'preservative  against 
Popery,  Title  7,  p.  93. 

Another  of  Mr.  Sawyer's  arguments  is  this.  Page 
6,  "  Faith  is  the  duty  of  adults,  not  of  infants,  there- 
fore the  want  of  it  in  the  case  of  the  latter  cannot  lay 
them  under  any  moral  disabilities,  or  be  any  obstacle 
to  their  baptism."  "  I  reply,  neither  were  the  Jews 
forbidden  to  circumcise  females.  Besides,  we  are  not 
expressly  forbidden  to  baptize  unbelievers,  nor  our 
meeting  houses  and  bells  ;  but  will  it  do  hence  to  bap- 
tize them.  Surely  this  kind  of  reasoning  will  not  do." 
— J.  Chadwlck  on  hapt.  p.  128. 

Another  of  his  arguments  is,  page  4,  "  The  rule  ob- 
served in  respect  to  infants,  whether  in  favor  of  baptiz- 
ing them  or  not,  and  many  other  things  relative  to 
baptism,  not  expressly  recorded,  were  no  doubt  clearly 
explained  by  Christ,  and  perfectly  understood  at  the 
time  by  his  disciples  ;  these  primitive  explanations  are 
now  lost.^^ 

"This  has  always  appeared  to  me,  ground,  hardly 
consistent  with  manly  fairness  and  candor,  and  calcu- 
lated to  enfeeble  rather  than  strengthen  ;  to  expose  to 
a  sneer,  rather  than  reccommend  to  acceptance,  the 
cause  it  is  meant  to  support." — Dr.  Wardlaw  on 
Bapt.f  p.  19. 


119 

When  Capt.  Syms  declared  that  this  earth  was  hol- 
lo vr,  and  inhabited  inside  as  well  as  out,  if  he  had  been 
informed  that  this  account  of  the  world  was  not  re- 
corded in  the  Bible,  we  presume  he  would  have  said, 
ail  these  things  "  were  no  doubt  clearly  explained  by 
Christ,  and  perfectly  understood  by  Moses ;  but  these 
primitive  explanations  are  now  lost.''^ 

It  may  satisfy  the  ignorant,  to  tell  them  that  the 
New  Testament  is  so  brief  a  work,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
could  not  mention  infants  in  the  72  instances  where  it 
speaks  of  baptism  ;  or  that  the  law  of  infant  baptism 
was  undoubtedly  given,  but  is  noio  lost.  But  men  of 
erudition  must  look  upon  such  statements,  as  a  bur- 
lesque on  common  sense.  What  Romish  tradition, 
what  heresy  could  we  not  support  in  this  way.  Isa. 
viii.20. 

Pedobaptists  formerly  plead,  that  their  children 
were  holy,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  baptized;  (Pres- 
byterian confession  of  faith,  p.  336,)  but  this  argument 
IS  becoming  stale  and  obsolete.  However,  it  is  well 
to  notice  the  texts  of  Scripture  which  they  have  urged 
to  prove  their  doctrine.  Rom.  xi.  16,  "  If  the  root  be 
holy,  so  are  the  branches."  The  argument  made 
from  this  text  and  its  connexion,  is  briefly  this.  Be- 
cause we^  the  root,  are  holy,  our  children^  the  branches 
are  holy,  and  because  our  children  are  holy,  they 
ought  to  be  baptized.  But  still,  they  do  not  admit 
these  holy  baptized  infant  church  memhers  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  other  church  privileges ;  evident- 
ly making  a  difference  which  the  Apostle  strictly  for- 
bids at  Rom.  X.  12  :  Gal.  iii.  26—29.     *'  For  there  is 

no  difference^  &c. For  as  many  as   have  been 

baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ ;  there  is  nei- 
ther Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there 
is  neither  male  nor  female  ;  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 


120 

The  other  text  urged  to  this  end,  is  I  Cor.  vii.  14. 
"  The  unbelieving  husband,  is  sanctified  by  the  wife  ; 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband. 
Else  were  your  children  unclean  ;  but  now  are  they 
holy."  To  plead  that  holiness  is  generated  with  our 
being,  is  to  overthrow  the  doctrine  of  regeneration,  and 
stands  opposed  to  Gen.  vi.  5 — 12  :  Psa.  li.  5 :  Job 
liv.  4  :  Psa.  Iviii.  3  :  Isa.  xlviii.  8  :  Rom.  iii.  10 — 18  : 
John  iii.  3 — 10:  Rom.  v.  12.  "As  by  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men.  for  that  all  have  sinned" — "  All 

are  born  with  a  sinful  nature there  has  never 

been  one  instance  of  an  immaculate  human  soul,  since 
the  fall  of  Adam.  Through  his  transgression  all  come 
into  the  world  with  the  seeds  of  death  and  corruption 
in  their  own  nature  ;  all  are  sinful — all  are  mortal — 
all  must  die." — Dr.  A.  Clark^s  comment  on  Bom.  v. 
12,  13. 

"Original  sin  is  the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  na- 
ture of  every  man,  and  therefore,  in  every  person  born 
into  this  world,  itdeserveth  God's  wrath." — Church  of 
Eng.  Conf.  of  Faith,  Art.  9. 

"  Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of  Adam. 
(as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk,)  but  it  is  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  nature  of  every  m,an,  that  naturally  is 
engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam,  whereby  man  is 
very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  of  his 
own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  and  that  continually." — 
Epis.  Meth.  Disc.  Art.  of  Rel.  7. 

But  if  the  infants  of  believers  were  really  sinless, 
there  is  no  better  authority  for  baptizing  them,  than, 
"  The  infants  of  one  or  both  believing  parents  are  to 
be  baptized,  and  these  only." — Sayhrook  Platform, 
ehapt.  29,  sec.  4. 

"I  think  Dr.  Reynolds,  in  his  meditations  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  has  summarily  exposed  the  common 
judgment  of  Calvinists  in  these  strong  lines  of  his. 


121 

The  sacrament  is  but  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  the 
covenant  essentially  includes  conditions,  and  the  con- 
dition on  our  part  is  faith.  No  faith,  no  covenant  ; 
no  covenant,  no  seal ;  no  seal,  no  sacrament. — Pres. 
Edwards''  Works,  vol.  4,  p.  435. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  if  your  minister  says  you 
should  have  your  children  baptized  because  they  are 
in  the  covenant,  just  ask  him  what  covenant. 

"  We  can  not  allow  that  baptized  infants  wheth- 
er sanctified  or  unsanctified,  belong  to  the  visible 
church  ;  for  1,  they  can  not  belong  to  it  by  virtue  of 
their  own  act,  for  they  can  neither  make  nor  accept 
any  proposals  ;  2,  they  can  not  belong  to  it  by  virtue 
of  their  parents'  act ;  believing  parents  can  not  cove- 
nant with  God  for  them ,  (and)  in  stating  the 

nature  of  covenanting,  we  have  endeavored  to  prove 
that  it  lies  not  within  the  province  of  Divine  soveriegnty 
to  take  any  of  the  human  race  into  covenant,  without 
their  own  personal  knowledge  and  consent." — Dr, 
Ewjmon's  work,  and  Mather''s  Magfialia,  p.  19. 

By  examining  the  following  references,  the  candid 
inquirer  will  be  fully  satisfied  that  infant  baptism 
makes  no  part  of  Divine  record. 

1.  John's  baptism ;  Matt.  iii.  1 — 16  :  xxi.  25  : 
Mark  i.  1—6 :  xi  31—33 :  Luke  iii.  3—22 :  xx.  4 
—8  :  John  i.  28—31 :  Acts  i.  5—22  :  x.  37:  xiii.  24  : 
xviii.  25  :  xix.  1 — 7. 

2.  The  baptism  of  Jesus  Christ ;  Matt.  iii.  13—17; 
Mark  i.  9-11 :  Luke  iii.  21,  22  :  John  i.  32-34. 

3.  Christ  baptizing  by  his  disciples  in  Judea  ;  John 
iii.  22-26:  iv.  1-3. 

4.  John's  last  baptizing  in  Enon  ;  John  iii.  23. 

5.  An  account  of  John's  success  ;  Luke  vii.  29,  30. 

6.  Christ's  sufferings,  represented  under  the  figure 
of  baptism  ;    Matt.  xx.  22,  23  :  Luke  xii.  50. 

7.  Our  Lord's  commission  ;  Matt,  xxviii.  18-20 ; 
Mark  xvi.  15, 16. 

II 


122 

8.  Baptism  at  the  Pentecost;  Acts  ii.  37-42. 

9.  Phillip's  baptizing;  Acts  viii.  12,  13. 

10.  The  eunuch's  baptism  ;  Acts  viii.  36-39. 

11.  The  baptism  of  St.  Paul ;  Acts  ix.  17,  18  :  xxii. 
16  :  Rom.  vi.  3-5. 

12.  The  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  friends:  Acts 
X.  37-48. 

13.  The  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  household  :  Acta 
xyi.  13-15. 

14.  Baptism  of  the  jailer  and  his  household  ;  Acts 
xvi.  29-34. 

15.  Paul's  baptizing  at  Corinth ;  Acts  xviii.  8 : 
1  Cor.  i.  13-17:  xvi.  15. 

16.  Instances  where  the  word  is  used,  from  which 
some  light  may  be  gathered.  Col.  ii.  12  :  Eph.  iv.  6  : 
1  Cor.  xii.  13:  xv.  29:  Gal.  iii.  27:  Heb.  vi.  1,  2: 
1  Cor.  X.  1,  2 :   1  Peter  iii.  20,  21. 

And  to  assist  the  reader  while  he  investigates  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  we  will  lay  before  him  some  com- 
ments from  the  most  eminent  pedohaptist  divines. 

"  It  is  evident  from  the  addresses  of  the  different 
inspired  Epistles,  what  manner  of  persons  they  were, 
who  ought  to  have  been  received  and  retained  as  mem- 
bers. They  are  beloved  of  God  ;  called  to  be  saints  ; 
sunctified  in  Christ  Jesus ;  saints  and  faithful  in 
Christ  Jesus.  Such  as  had  obtained  the  like  preciou.s 
faith  with  the  Apostles. — Rom.  i.  7 :  Eph.  i.  1 :  2  Pe- 
ter i.l,  <fec." —  Wardlaw  on  bapt.  p.  145. 

"All  traces  of  infant  baptism  which  one  will  find 
in  the  New  Testament,  must  first  be  put  into  it.  Our 
creeds  treat  of  it,  wathout  regard  to  history,  and  at- 
tempt to  justify  it  in  itself.  But  the  manner  in  which 
they  do  it  is  unsatisfactory,  and  upon  grounds  that 
essentially  destroy  each  other."  —  Schl€iermacher*g 
Theology,  p.  383. 

^'  Regeneration  is  the  thing,  without  which,  a  lille 


123 

to  the   sacraments   is  not  to  be  pretended." — Cotton 
Mather^  in  Backus'  Ch.  hist.  vol.  2,  p.  1,  2. 

"  Formerly  no  person  was  brought  to  the  holy  baptism 
till  he  was  of  adult  age,  and  when  he  both  understood 
what  that  mystical  water  meant,  and  desired  to  be 
washed  in  it." — Litdovicus  Vives^  com.,  Lib.  1, 
ehapt.  27. 

"All  attempts  to  make  out  infant  baptism  from  the 
New  Testament,  fail.  It  is  totally  opposed  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Apostolic  ao^e,  and  to  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  New  Testament." — Prof.  Lange's 
work  on  hapt.  p.  101. 

"  The  primitive  church  did  not  baptize  infants,  and 
the  learned  Grotius  proves  it  in  his  Annotations  on 
the  Gospels." — Stemiett''s    answer  to  Russen,  p.  188. 

"Rheinhard,  Morus,  and  Doderlein,  say  infant  bap- 
tism is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible." — Bretschnei- 
der's  Theology,  vol.  2,  p.  758. 

"  Tt  cannot  be  proved  by  the  sacred  Scriptures,  that 
infant  baptism  was  instituted  by  Christ,  or  begun  by 
the  first  Christians  after  the  Apostles." — M.  Luther  in 
Booth  Pedo.  exam.   Vol.  2,  p.  4. 

'•Baptism  obligates  a  man  to  a  Christian  life  ;  But 
how  can  one  who  is  unconscious,  (an  infant,)  obligate 
himself  to  anything." — Hase^s  Theology,  p.  449. 

"  The  baptism  then  used  by  John,  and  Christ's  dis- 
ciples, was  only  the  baptism  of  repentance,  and  faith 
in  the  Messiah  which  was  for  to  come  :  (Acts  xix.  4,)  of 
both  which,  infants  were  incapable."- — Whitby's  An- 
no, on  Matt.  xix.  13,  14. 

"  There  is  not  a  single  example  to  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  where  infants  were  baptized." — 
Starke'' s  hist,  of  infant  bapt.  p.  11. 

'•  Children  are  not  expressly  mentioned  in  the  com 
mand  to  baptize,  or  in  the  accounts  of  baptisms,  con- 
tained in  the  New  Testament." — Dr.    Wood^s  Led.  on 
bapt.,  p.  107. 


124 

"Christian  baptism  can  be  given  only  to  adults, not 
to  infants. — Prof,    hinder  on  the  Supper^  p.  123. 

"  As  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  it  is  a  mere  human 
tradition,  for  which  neither  precept  nor  practice  is  to 
be  found  in  all  the  Scriptures." — R,  Barklay  ( Qua- 
ker) Apology^  p.  409. 

"A  Congregational  church,  is  by  the  institution  of 
Christ,  a  part  of  the  militant  visible  church,  consisting 
of  a   company  of  saints  hy  callings   united  in  one 

body  by  an  holy  covenant. The  things  which 

are  requisite  to  he  found  in  all  church  members^  are 
repentance  from  sin,  and  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.''^ 
Cambridge  Platform,  chapt.  2,  sect.  6,  and  chapt.  12, 
sec.  2. 

"  The  visible  church  of  Christ,  is  a  congregation 
of  faithful  men,  in  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is 
preached,  and  the  sacraments  duly  administered  ac- 
cording to  Christ's  ordinance."  Epis,  Meth.  disci. 
Art.  of  Relig.  13. 

The  above  rather  disproves  infant  church  member- 
ship. As  infant  baptism  is  not  a  Bible  doctrine,  when 
was  it  originated  ? 

To  show  this,  we  will  notice  the  church  which  in- 
vented it.  Dr.  Moshiem  says,  "  The  greatest  part  of 
the  Christians  who  lived  in  Palestine,  to  prevent  their 
being  confounded  with  the  Jews,  abandoned  entirely 
the  Mosaic  rites,  and  chose  a  bishop  named  Mark,  a 
foreigner  by  nation. This  step  was  highly  shock- 
ing to  those  whose  attachment  to  the  Mosaic  rites  was 

violent. These,  therefore  separated   themselves 

from  the  brethren,  and  formed  at  Pera,  a  country  of 
Palestine,  and  in  the  neighboring  parts,  particular  as- 
semblies, in  which  the  law  of  Moses  maintained  its 
primitive  dignity,  authority  and  luster.  TPiis  body 
oi  Judaizing  Christians,  which  set  Moses  and  Christ 
upon  equal  foot  in  point  of  authority,  was  afterwards 
divided  into  two  sects distinguished  by  the  namds 


125 

of  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites. They  (Ebionites) 

moreover  asserted  that  the  ceremonial  law  instituted 
by  Moses  was  not  only  obligatory  upon  the  Jews,  but 
also  upon  all  others^  and  that  the  observance  of  it  was 

essential    to    salvation. They   went   still    farther, 

and  received  with  an  equal  degree  of  veneration  the 
superstitions  of  their  ancestors,  and  the  ceremonies 
and   traditions  which  the  Pharisees  presumptuously 

added  to  the  law. Cerdo  the  Cyrian,  and  Marcion 

the  son  of  the  bishop  of  Pontus,  belonged  to  the  Asiat- 
ic sect,  though  they  began  to  establish  their  doctrine 

at  Rome. Yalentine -his   sect,  which  took  its 

rise  in  Rome,  grew  up  to  a  state  of  consistency  and 
vigor,  in  the  isle  of  Cyprus,  and  spread  itself  through 
Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe. These  were  succeed- 
ed by  one  in  which  ignorance  reigned,  and  which 
was  the  mortal  enemy  of  philosophy  and  letters,  ft 
was  formed  by  Montanus,  an  obscure  man,  without 
capacity  or  strength  of  judgment,  and  who  lived  in  a 
Phrigian  village  called  Pepiiza.  This  weak  man 
was  foolish  and  extravagant  enough  to  take  it  into  his 
head  that  he  was  the  Paraclete  or  Comforter  which  the 

Divine  Savior promised  to  send   to  his  disciples." 

— Moshiem^s  Ch.  Hist.  cent.  2,  part  2,  chapt.  3 — 5. 

This  Pepuzian  branch  of  the  Ebionite  Gnostics, 
continued  to  exist  as  a  little  corrupt  church,  and  in  A. 
D.  204,  v/e  find  it  conducted  by  several  prophetesses, 
or  female  bishops^  of  whom  (iuintillia  was  chief; 
hence  they  were  commonly  called  Q,uintillianists : 
but  they  denominated  themselves  Artotyrites,  (bread 
and  cheese  eaters.)  It  was  in  this  church,  and  at 
this  time,  that  children's  baptism  was  invented,  and  it 
was  this  Q,uintillia,  who  wrote  to  Tertulian,  inquiring 
if  children  could  not  be  baptized  on  condition  they 
asked  for  it,  and  brought  proper  sponsers.  Tertuli- 
an's  reply,  which  was  in  the  negative^  forms  a  tract  of 
less  than  six  folio  pages,  (See  Tertulian  on  baptism, 
11* 


126 

chapter  18,  ag'ainst  Q,uintillia,)  and  it  is  very  evident 
that  these  children  were  not  mere  infontSj  but  young 
people;  for  Q^uintillia  represents  them  as  asking  for 
baptism;  and  Tertu'ian  in  reply  recommends  that 
they  be  classed  with  widows  and  other  unmarried  v/o- 
men,  and  kept  on  trial  till  they  give  full  evidence  of 
piety,  before  they  come  to  baptism.  We  hear  nothing 
more  of  this  Pepuzian  doctrine,  for  about  half  a  ccn- 
tiiry*  However,  it  might  have  been  practiced  in 
some  few  cases  among  the  poor  Africans  in  this  sect 
^  of  gnostics  ;  for  in  A.  D.  253,  one  Fidus,  an  ignorant 
African,  inquired  of  Cyprian,  the  bishop  of  Carthage^ 
if  children  might  be  baptized  be?bre  they  were  eight 
days  old.  And  this  is  the  ^r^/f  Airi^  of  infant  baptism 
that  can  be  found  in  all  the  records  in  the  universe^ 
whether  inspired  or  uninspired,  Cyprian  submitted 
the  question  of  Fidus  to  a  council  convened  at  Car- 
thage, A.  D.  253,  and  that  assembly  decided  that  in- 
fants might  be  baptized,  not  for  reasons  which  pedo- 
baptists  now  plead,  but  because  an  infant  is  equal  to 
a  ?nan.  Their  decree  is  as  follovv^s  ;  "  Did  not  Eli- 
sha  lay  upon  a  child,  and  put  bis  month  upon  liis 
mouth,  and  his  eyes  upon  his  eyes,  and  his  hands 
upon  his  hands  ;  now  the  spiritual  sense  of  this  is^ 
that  infants  are  equal  to  men.  But  if  you  refuse  to 
baptize  them,  you  d'estroy  this  equality,  and  are  par- 
tial."—  Cf/p.  Epist.  66,  ad  Fidum. 

From  this  time  and  circiimstance,  we  admit  that 
infant  baptism  began  to  s^rv^^c'l  in  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic churches  in  Africa,  but  Vv-hether  female  bishops 
were  multiplied  to  take  care  of  them,  history  saith  not. 

To  sustain  the  practice,"  some'  liave  quoted  the 
words  of  Irenaus,  Lib.  2,  22,  4,  ''  Christ  came  to  save 
all  persons  by  himself,  all  J  say  who  are  renascuntur 
in  Deum^  (rea:enerated  unto  God.)  infants  and  little 
ones,  and  children  and  youths,  and  elder  persons." 
If  Irenaus  meant  baptisna  by  reaascunturj  and  thus 


127 

said  that  Christ  came  to  save  all  who  are  ba'piized, 
he  was  too  great  a  heretic  to  be  quoted.  But  if  he 
meant  by  it  regeneration,  which  is  ihe  fact ,  then  his 
words  have  no  reference  to  baptism. 

They  have  also  quoted  the  v/ords  of  Justin  Martyr; 
"  There  were  many  of  both  sexes,  some  sixty,  some 
seventy  years  old,  who  were  made  disciples  to  Christ 
etc  Ttaiduiv  from  their  childhood.  The  word  he  uses  is 
i(m6r,Teo0i](f(xv,  they  were  proselyted  or  made  disciples. 

As  the  phrase  an  naidcov  may  relate  to  children 

who  have  come  to  years  of  understanding  as  well  as  to 
infants,  I  am  satisfied  on  a  review  of  tne  testimony  of 
Justin,  that  it  can  not  well  be  urged  as  conclusive  in 
fovor  of  pedobaptism." — Wardlaio  on  bapt.,  p.  112. 

'•  The  defenders  of  infant  baptism,  attempt  to  prove 
it  from  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaus  ;  but  neither  of 
them  say  what  is  attributed  to  them." — tStarcPc's  hist, 
of  bapt,,  p.  50. 

"  All  the  arguments  put  together,  do  not  prove 
that  renasci  in  Deuni  means,  to  be  baptized." — Ross- 
lers  Library  of  Christian,  Fathers,  vol.  1,  p.  11. 

"  The  imm.ediate  occasion  of  infant  baptism,  it  can- 
not be  denied,  was  extravagant  ideas  of  its  necessity 
to  salvation." — Dresslefs  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments j 
p.  137. 

"  For  this  cause,  the  church  has  received  a  tradi- 
tion from  the  Apostles,  even  to  give  baptism  unto  in- 
fants."—  Origen^s  coin,  ad  Roman,  Lib.  ^^fol.  178. 

"  Origen's  words  in  that  age,  cannot  have  much 
weight,  for  whatever  was  regarded  as  important,  was 
alleged  to  come  from  the  Apostles." — Dr.  Neandefs 
Ch.  hist.,  vol.  1,  part  2,  p.  367. 

''  Those  Latin  works  we  have,  are  translated  by 
Rafinus  and  others  with  so  much  liberty,  that  it  is  a 
difficult  matter  to  discern  what  is  Origen's,  from  what 
has  been  foisted  in  by  interpreters." — Du  Pin^  voM^j 
p.  108.  "" 


128 

This  is  the  kind  of  testimony  that  pedobaptists  at- 
tempt to  sustain  themselves  with,  after  they  have  con- 
fessed that  there  is  no  scripture  to  prove  infant  baptism. 
While  they  esteem  the  traditions  and  assertions  of 
Roman  Catholics  of  this  age  as  most  fabulous  and  ri- 
diculous, how  can  they  go  back  to  the  darkest  ages  of 
Romish  superstitions,  and  credit  their  falsehoods?  Can 
this  end  of  the  same  stick  be  rotten  bass  wood,  and 
that  end  be  sound  hickory?  But  it  is  in  proof  that 
infant  baptism  did  not  prevail,  even  in  the  Romij^h 
church,  till  long  after  Cyprian's  council,  for, 

It  is  abundantly  evident,  that  many  persons  who 
were  born  of  Christirm  parents,  and  educated  in  tha 
Christian  faith,  were  not  baptized  until  they  came  to 
adult  years,  and  made  a  personal  profession. 

Helena  the  mother  of  Constantine,  was  a  very  de- 
vout and  zealous  Christian,  yet  he  was  not  baptized 
upon  her  faith.  Nor  did  he  dedicate  his  own  childrra 
to  God  in  baptism  by  virtue  of  his  faith  :  for  we  are  in- 
formed by  Socrates,  that  his  son  Constantius,  who  suc- 
ctided  his  father  in  the  empire,  Vv^ as  baptized  by  Euzo- 
ius  when  he  was  preparing  for  his  expedition  against 
Juiianus,  and  immediately  after  ended  his  life  at  Mop- 
sucrenia  twenty-five  years  after  the  death  of  his  father. 
— Eccl.  Hist.  Lib.  2,  chapt.  47. 

Basil;  the  son  of  Basil,  Bishop  of  Nicene,  was  bap- 
tized in  Jordan  when  far  advanced  in  years. 

Gregory  the  great,  the  son  of  Gregor^^,  bishop  of 
Nazianzen,  was  born  while  his  father  was  bishop,  and 
yet  not  baptized  until  he  was  twenty,  some  say  thirty, 
years  old.  See  Osander's  book.  Cent.  iv.  L.  3,  and  Rob- 
inson's Hist.  p.  250. 

Grotius  says,  that  Chrysostom  was  born  of  believ- 
ing parents,  and  was  educated  by  Melitius,  a  bishop, 
yet  not  baptized  till  the  age  of  twenty-one. 

Erasmus  testifies,  that  Jerom  was  born  in  the  city 
of  Stridon,  of  Christian  parents,  was  brought  up  iu 


129 

the  Christian  religion,  and  was  baptized  in  the  thirti- 
eth year  of  his  age. 

Vossius  affirms,  that  Nectarius  was  chosen  bishop  of 
Constantinople  before  he  was  baptized. 

Theodosius,  the  emperor,  was  born  in  Spain  ;  his 
parents  were  both  Christians,  and  from  his  childhood 
had  been  trained  up  in  the  Nicene  faith  ;  was  bap- 
tized at  Thessalonica  by  Achalio,when  he  was  upwards 
of  thirty  years  old, —  Vide  Junius,  Junior^  p.  68.  Roh. 
p.  250,  Eccl.  Hist.  Lib.  v.  Cliap.  vi. 

Add  to  this  the  fact,  that  in  the  3d,  4th,  and  5th 
centuries,  there  were  large  and  numberless  schools  of 
catechumen,  (the  children  of  church  members.)  who 
were  under  a  course  of  instruction  preparing  for  bap- 
tism, and  that  as  infant  baptism  increased,  catecheti- 
cal schools  vanished  ;  and  the  evidence  is  incontro- 
vertable,  that  infant  baptism  was  not  practiced  by  the 
Apostolic  churches,  or  those  which  immediately  suc- 
ceeded them. 

*'All  the  earlier  traces  of  infant  baptism  are  very 
nncertain.  Tertulian  is  the  first  who  mentions  ii, 
and  he  censuresvit." — Von  Coin,  vol.  1,  p.  469. 

"  The  first  traces  of  infant  baptism  are  found  in  the 
Western  church,  after  the  middle  of  the  second  centu- 
ry."— -Rkie  aw  aid's  works,  p.  313. 

"In  the  first  two  centuries,  no  documents  are  found 
which  clearly  show  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  at 
that  time." — Matkies  on  bapt.,  p.  187. 

Dr.  Neander  says,  "  It  was  only  in  the  course  of 
the  third  century,  that  infant  baptism  was  acknow- 
ledged as  au  Apostolic  institution." — Judd^s  reply  to 
Stewart,  p.  19S. 

"Neither  in  the  Scriptures,  nor  during  the  first 
hundred  and  fifty  years,  is  a  sure  example  of  infant 
baptism  to  be  found,  and  we  must  concede  that  the 
numerous  opposers  of  it  can  not  be  contradicted  on 
gospel  ground." — Prof.  Hahn^s  Theology,  p.  556. 


130 

It  is  thus  clear,  that  all  the  writers  of  the  first  and 
second  centuries,  inspired  and  uninspired,  speak  of  a 
believer  as  the  only  subject,  and  of  immersion  as  the 
only  baptism.  In  the  third  century  infant  baptism 
was  introducedjbut  only  in  certain  cases  ;  tliat  Jerome, 
Athanasius,  Epiphanius,  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  of 
Niocesaria,  in  the  fourth  century ;  Chrysostom,  Faus- 
tus,  Regiensis,  and  Evegrius  in  the  fifth ;  Gregory  and 
the  Council  of  Agatha  in  the  sixth  ;  the  Bracaren's 
Council,  and  that  of  Toletanus,  Paulinus,  and  his  as- 
sociates in  England,  in  the  seventh;  Bede,  Haime,  the 
Council  of  Paris,  and  that  of  Laodicea,  in  the  eighth  ; 
Rabanus  and  Albinus  in  the  ninth  :  Smaragdo  in  the 
teuth,  Anslem,  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses. Peter  de 
Bruis  and  his  numerous  associates  in  the  eleventh  ; 
Alburtus  Magnus,  Thomas  Aquinas  in  the  twelfth  ; 
Jacob  Merningus  records  that  many  in  Poland,  Lora- 
biirdy,  Germany,  and  Holland  in  the  thirteenth  ;  Car- 
ious, bishop  of  Meyland,  the  Thaborites,  and  many  Bo- 
far^.aii.ins  in  the  fourteenth  ;  the  Hungarians  and  Wal- 
denses in  their  confession  of  fi\ith,  A.  D.  1521  and  hosts 
ill  the  IGth  century  have  advocated  the  Baptists'  sen- 
timents and  practice. 

When  thus  completely  driven  off  from  both  Bible 
and  hisiory.the  last  resort  of  the  pedobaptists  is, to  plead 
that  infant  baptism  is  a  church  custom,  ond  as  it  does 
HO  harm,  it  is  well  enough  to  practice  it ;  but  we  reply, 
it  IS  not  harmless,  for, 

1.  It  is  a  mere  act  of  will  worship,  which  is  po^i- 
tirely  forbidden,  Gol.  ii.  11—23  :  Isa.  i.  12,  13  :  Malt. 
xy.  3 — 9  :  John  xv.  14 :  2  John  6. 

2.  It  destroys  believers  baptism,  and  should  infant 
baptism  universally  prevail,  believers  baptism  could 
CO  lono:er  exist. 

3.  However  sincerely  and  devotionally  some  parents 
may  offer  their  children  in  baptism,  it  is  evident,  that 
with  the  'priests^  the  whole  fabric  of  infant  baptism  is 


131 

a  mere  proselyting  scheme.  They  sprinkle  infants, 
and  call  them  church  members,  that  when  they  are 
converted  they  may  the  more  effectually  resist  their 
uniting  with  any  other  church.  But  should  I  put  a 
pen  into  the  hand  of  an  unconscious  babe,  and  move 
that  hand  to  sign  a  legal  quitclaim  to  its  temporal  in- 
terests, would  that  be  an  honest  conveyance?  No 
more  does  the  priest's  or  parent's  act  of  sprinkling, 
destroy  the  convert's  claim  to  believers  baptism. 

4.  Baptism  is  said  to  be,  1  Peter  iii.  21,  •'  The  an- 
swer of  a^ood  conscience  towards  God."  But  infant 
baptism  destroys  all  this.  1.  The  minister  knows  he 
is  acting  without  the  least  divine  authority  ;  therefore 
he  can  have  no  good  conscience  toward  God  in  the 
act.  2.  The  infant  is  totally  unconscious.  3.  And 
a  s^reat  majority  of  the  parents  act,  one  to  please  the 
other,  or  both  to  please  the  clergyman,  while  they  are 
wholly  indifferent  or  totally  opposed. 

5.  The  legitimate  result  of  the  practice  is  to  make 
invidious  distinctions  in  the  same  family,  or  baptize 
unbelievers.  Suppose  a  family  of  ten  unconverted 
children  from  the  age  of  one  to  twenty  years.  The 
parent  is  converted  and  unites  with  the  church.  Now 
if  none  of  these  children  are  baptized  and  joined  to 
the  church,  then  the  law  of  the  church  is  broken  ;  if 
all  are  baptized,  &c.,  then  the  law  of  God  is  broken  ; 
if  a  part  only  is  to  be  baptized,  who  will  draw  the  line 
of  separation.  I  could  relate  facts,  arising  from  such 
dilemmas,  too  shocking^  to  publish. 

6.  "It  goes  to  establish  the  sword  of  contention  m 

the  same  house not  long  since  and  not  far  from 

where  the  author  lives,  (Rochester  N.  Y.)  a  respecta- 
ble member  of  the  church,  went  to  his  wife  in  the  coa- 
gregation,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  his  child  from 
her  arms  to  have  it  baptized  ;  but  she  had  such  a 
Hiigfhty  conscieHce  upon  the  subject,  that  she  obstinately 


132 

refused  to  give  it  up,  and  her  husband  had  the  morti- 
fication of  a  defeat." — E.  House  on  hapt.  p.  74. 

7.  "  The  adoption  of  the  plan  of  infant  church  mem- 
bership under  the  gospel,  is  attended  with  another  dif- 
ficulty, viz :  it  naturally  leads  to  the  membership  of 
the  wife  upon  the  faith  of  her  husband,  as  well  as  of 
the  children  ;  for  in  the  Jewish  church  the  member- 
ship of  the  former  was  as  fully  determined  as  that  of 
the  latter ;  the  husband,  if  a  native  Jew,  was  in  the 
church  with  his  whole  family ;  if  a  proselyte,  he  en- 
tered with  his  whole  flimily,  wife,  children  and  ser- 
vants. This  is  too  evident  to  be  denied." — Chaduick 
on  bapt.j  p.  133. 

"  Let  every  parent  who  has  presented  his  child  to 
God  in  baptism,  bear  this  in  mind,  whether  he  intend- 
ed it  or  not,  he  did  in  that  act,  openly  declare  the 
Lord  to  be  his  God,  and  acknowledge  himself  bound 
to  obey  all  of  God's  commands.  Can  he  after  this,  re- 
fuse to  sit  down  to  the  Lord's  table?" —  W.  T.  HoTn- 
ilton  on  hapt.,  p.  110. 

8.  However  desirable  Christian  union  is,  those  who 
practice  infant  baptism  are  the  immediate  cause  of 
existing  divisions  in  the  church  of  God  ;  and  while 
they  know  that  the  true  church  can  not  fellowship  pe- 
dobaptism,  yet  they  will  not  abandon  it,  that  we  may 
unite.      Rom.  xvi.  17  :  1  Cor.  i.  10  :  iii.  3  :  xi.  18,  19. 

9.  The  Roman  Catholics  are  making  fearful  inroads; 
yet  pedobaptist  opposition  is  powerless,  for  when  they 
attempt  to  prove  the  falacy  of  purgatory,  prayers  for 
the  dead,  holy  water,  image  worship,  prayers  to  the 
saints,  infant  communion,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  exor- 
<#ism,  salt,  spittle,  Peter  pence,  indulgences,  auricu- 
lar (Confession,  <fec.,  the  papists  uniformily,  and  justly 
reply,  we  have  as  much  Bible  for  each  and  all  of 
these,  as  yOu  have  for  infant  baptism  ;  and  our  "Saints 
and   Fathers   whom  you   quote  as  sound  authority^, 


133 

show  that  all  of  the  above  came  from  the  Apostles, 
and  were  in  practice  as  early  as  pedobaptism. 

10.  Finally,  as  there  are  no  directions  in  the  Bible 
respecting  infant  baptism,  each  one  makes  his  own 
rules.  Hence  the  schisms  and  dissensions  among 
the  defenders  of  it.  One  says  it  ought  to  be  adminis- 
tered only  to  the  children  of  believers;  another  says 
it  may  be  given  to  children  when  but  one  of  the  pa- 
rents is  a  professor;  a  third  says,  it  may  be  adminis- 
tered on  the  faith  of  the  grandfather  ;  a  fourth  says  it 
may  be  given  to  any  infant,  if  sponsors  will  appear  for 
it;  a  fifth,  says  that  all  infants  are  born  holy,  there- 
fore they  should  be  baptized  irrespective  of  parents  or 
eponsors.  Some  say  that  baptism  saves  the  infant's 
soul ;  others  deny  this.  Some  say  that  Roman  Cath- 
olic baptism  is  valid,  others  will  rebaptize  them.  Some 
say  that  infants  should  be  baptized,  because  they  are 
members  of  the  church  ;  others  say  they  should  be 
baptized  to  make  them  church  members ;  and  these, 
as  every  man  of  reading  knows,  are  but  an  index  to  the 
angry  and  endless  debates,  which  arise  from  infant 
baptism.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  stand  ye  in  the 
ways  and  see  ;  and  ask  for  the  old  paths,  where  is 
the  good  way,  and  walk  therein,  and  ye  shall  find 
rest  for  your  soiils^ — Jeremiah  vi.  16. 

While  it  is  thus  evident  that  infant  sprinkling  is 
not  an  institution  of  heaven,  nor  a  means  of  grace, 
and  therefore  not  to  be  practiced  ;  we  would  exhort 
you  to  dedicate  your  children  to  God  by  solemn 
prayer  and  Christian  instruction,  according  to  the  New- 
Testament;  and  in  view  of  an  approaching  judgment, 
and  the  worth  of  their  souls,  we  would  intreat  you 
to  labor  early  and  faithfully  for  their  salvation. 


12 


134 

CHAPTER   V. 
THE   ACTION   OF   BAPTISM. 

SECTION      I  . 

Prepositions. 

Mr.  Sawyer  says  that  hg  ano  ex  iv  have  power  to 
change  j^aTTTw  into  %i(o  lovco  QttvTit,a) ;  his  argument  in 
plain  English  is  this  :  the  prepositions  out.  from,  in, 
into,  have  power  to  change  the  verb  dip,  into  dip, 
pour,  wash,  or  sprinkle.  To  prove  that  ^utitm  iig  (  dip 
intOj)  means  dip  into,  he  quotes  from  the  Septuagint 
Lev.  iv.  6 :  ix.  9:  xiv.  6 :  and  he  might  have  added 
from  the  New  Testament,  Matt,  xxviii.  19:  Mark  i.  9: 
Acts  viii.  16—38  :  Acts  xix.  3—5  :  ICor.  xii.  13. 

Mr.  S.  says,  page  3 — 17,  "  that  ano  does  not  mean?» 
and  out  o/,  but  fro?3i  and  ivith.  Hence  when  this  prep- 
osition follows  the  verb  ^ann'co)  it  shows  that  the  liquid 
employed,  is  used  in  some  other  way  than  by  dip- 
ping." To  prove  that  ano  does  not  mean  out  ofj  he 
quotes  Matt.  iii.  16.  '-Jesus  when  he  was  baptized 
went  up  straightway  ano  {out  of)  the  water."  Mark 
i.  10;  "Jesus  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan,  and 
straightway  coming  up  ano  out  of  the  water."  But  if 
these  passages  prove  any  thing,  they  prove  Mr.  Saw- 
yer sadly  mistaiven.  To  show  that  ano  does  not  mean 
in,  and  that  it  even  has  power  to  change  (ianmt,  dip, 
into  sprinkle,  he  quotes  four  texts  from  the  Septua- 
gint, in  which  he  says  the  word  ^aniM  is  followed  by 
OTTO.     Ex.  xii.  22,  "  And  ye  shall  take  a  bunch  of  hys- 

sop  xat  ^aipavTig  ano  lov  aifiaTOU.aud  dip  it  in  the  blood.** 
Lev.  IV.  17,  ^^aai  ^uip6i>  6  *t60ivg  tov  daiCTvXop  ano  lov  ai/uaTOg^ 

and  the  priest  shall  c//*/;  his  finger?!?/,  [some]  of  the  blood.* 

Lev.     xiv.     16,    ''  xai  ^aipst  TOV  daxTvXov  top  deploy  ano  ttw 

sXawu,  and  the  priest  shall  dip  his  right  finger  in  the 
oil."       Deut.  xxxiii.  24,  "  ^a^e»  ev  eXauu  tov  noda  avu» 


135 

dip  his  foot  in  oil."  It  is  obvious  that  ^aipsi  is  not 
followed  by  ano  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  24,  but  by  sv]  hence 
this  text  is  not  only  nnisrepresented,  but  misquoted, 
and  in  the  other  three,  the  inviolate  ujeaning  of  ^aTtrw 
dip,  is  preserved,  and  ano  rendered  in  :  and  it  is  a  sin- 
gular fact,  that  at  Lev.  xiv.  15,  16,  the  three  words 
pour,  dip  and  sprinkle  occur  in  succession,  to  describe 
three  distinct  acts  of  the  same  service;  thus  showing 
their  contradistinction  in  Hebrew  and  Greek,  as  well 
as  in  Enolish.  We  presume  Mr.  Sawyer  made  the 
best  selection  he  could,  yet  so  far  from  disproving  in>- 
mersion,  he  has  altoirether  sustained  it  ;  for  the  six 
texts  quoted  by  him  read,  -'dip  in,  dip  in,  dip  in,  dip 
in,  went  up  out  of  the  water,  coming  up  out  of  the  wa- 
ter." 

Mr.  Sawyer  has  made  equally  wretched  work  with 
«»  and  si>.  (See  his  Critical  Dissertation,  p.  14 
—17.)  He  assures  us  that  ev  means  a^or  v)ith ;  hence 
baptizing  sv  toodavrivund  sv  vdait,  means  bei^Uziug  with 
Jordon,  and  baptizing  ai  water.  But  as  he  admits,  p. 
3,  that  the  meaning  of  (SWrt^w  is  to  dip,  it  must  be  ob- 
vious to  every  reader,  that  dipping  with  Jordan,  and 
dipping  at  water,  is  as  foreign  from  scripture  language, 
as  it  is  from  common  sense.  To  reply  in  particulai 
to  each  of  Mr.  Sawyer's  errors,  would  swell  this  vol- 
ame  beyond  its  design  ;  therefore  we  say,  the  English 
language  has  about  fifty  preposi«tions,  to  each  of  which 
have  been  given  from  five  to  thirty  different  mean- 
ings, and  the  law  of  languages  allows  the  use  of  one 
preposition  for  another.  Thus,  "  I  lodge  at  the  City 
Hotel.  That  is,  I  lodge  in,  not  in  the  street  by  the 
side  of  the  Hotel."  The  Greeks  have  but  eighteen 
prepositions.  ft  is  therefore  more  necessary  that  otie 
should  often  be  changed  for  another,  and  that  each 
should  be  used  in  several  varieties.  Still,  every  pre- 
position has  its  appropriate  use.  The  primary  mean- 
iug  of  B7C  is  oui  of;  but  it  has  five  other  meanings ;   •r 


136 

is  irij  but  it  has  eleven  other  meanings ;  cig  means  into^ 
yet  it  has  eleven  others.  Still,  all  grammarians  say 
that  each  preposition  has  but  one  primary  meaning, 
into  which  all  the  other  significations  arising  from 
figurative  or  analogical  relations  may  be  resolved. 

But  as  Mr.  Sawyer  prefers  deciding  the  meaning  of 
words  by  the  inspired  text,  (see  p.  2,)  we  will  examine 
a  few  chapters  of  the  Septuagint,  where  baptism  is  not 
the  subject  matter  of  discourse.  Genesis  i.  1:  sv  oq^j 
^^in,  not  near  to  the  beginning  ;"  verse  11,  "  Whose 
seed  is  ev  avico,  in,  not  at  or  near  by  ;"  verse  12,  '-Whose 
seed  was  ev  avxm^  in^  not  at  itself:''  verse  14,  "And 
God  said.  Let  there  be  lights  ev  tw  uieqbifiaii^  i?i,  not  ai 
the  firmament.  It  is  true  that  our  translators  have 
rendered  ev  with,  at  Matt.  iii.  11:  Mark  i.  8:  and  a 
few  other  places  ;  and  it  is  equally  true,  that  in  doing 
«o  they  have  taken  the  twelfth  meaning  instead  of  its 
primary.  Gen.  vii.  1 :  Come  thou  and  all  thy  house 
Big  rt]v  xif^ujwv^  i?ito,  not  on  or  bi/  the  ark.  Psa.  ix.  17  : 
The  wicked  shall  be  turned  etg,  into,  not  ai  or  near 
by  hell.  Pro  v.  iii.  4  :  Who  hath  ascended  up  eig,  into, 
not  on  or  bi/  heaven.  Dan.  vi.  16 :  Daniel  was  cast 
cKj  into,  not  towards  the  lion's  den.  Jonah  i.  12  :  Jo- 
nah was  cast  e^g,  into,  not  neai'  to  the  sea.  Matt.  v.  13 : 
And  the  herd  ran  violently  down  a  steep  place  eig  ti?^ 
daXaggav,  and  were  choked  in,  not  at  or  by  the  sea,  on 
dry  ground.  Matt.  xxv.  46  :  These  shall  go  away  «»«, 
into,  not  upon  everlasting  punishment,  and  the  right- 
eous eig,  into,  not  tou-ards  life  eternal.  Mark  i.  9: 
Jesus  was  baptized  of  John  eig,  into,  not  by  or  toioards 
Jordan.  Acts  viii.  39:  Philip  and  the  eunuch  came 
up  ex  Tov  idoLTog,  out  of  the  water.  But  enough  has 
been  said,  to  show  that  Mr.  Sawyer's  views  of  Greek 
prepositions  would  ruin  the  Bible. 


137 


SECTION     II. 

Mosaic  Baptisms, 

2  Kings  V.  10  :  Elisha  said  unto  Naantian,  Go  and 
tVln^^,Xovial,  bathe  in  Jordan  seven  times.  The  word 
here  used  in  Hebrew  and  Greek  is  one  which  definite- 
ly means  to  wash  the  whole  body,  in  distinction  from 
those  words  used  to  denote  washing  of  clothes  or  parts 
of  the  body,  as  hands,  face,  or  feet.  Verse  14:  Then 
went  he  down  and  b-U,  dipped  himself  seven  times  in 
Jordan,  accoixUng  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God. 
Parallel  cases  of  washing  by  dipping  constantly  occur 
in  the  Old   Testament,  and  frequently  in  the  New. 

Acts  xxii.     16  :     Arise     and      ^aniiaat  xai>   anoXovgai,    be 

immersed,  and  ivash  away  thy  sins.  Rom.  vi.  4: 
Therefore  we  i:vveTacp}]fiev,  are  buried  ivith  him  by 
baptism.  The  plural  pronouns,  we  and  us,  evidently 
include  Paul  with  others  baptized.  So  Paul  declares 
that  he  was  immersed.  Had  Naaman  and  Paul  un- 
derstood ri:^m  and  lovgai.  as  Mr.  Sawyer  does,  (p.  5,) 
"  the  joint  action  of  pouring  and  affusion,"  they  would 
not  have  been  b:3£2,  Hvvdunioj,  imfjiersed,  buried  in 
water. 

The  Jews  so  far  from  understanding  h^o  and  ^aTtriru 
to  mean  pouring  or  sprinkling,  even  understood  HiiJTn, 
bathe,  and  Xovm,  wash,  to  mean  immerse,  as  is  evident 
from  their  best  ancient  authors,  and  the  concessions  of 
able  pedobaptists. 

"Every  person  baptized  or  dipped,  whether  he 
were  washed  from  pollution,  or  baptized  unto  prose- 
lytism,  must  dip  his  whole  body  at  one  dipping;  and 
wheresoever  in  the  law  washing  of  the  body  or  gar- 
ments is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else." — Maimo- 
nides  Mikvaot,  chapt.  3. 

"  Although  the  baptism  practiced  by  John  and  the 
apostles  did  not  in  all  circumstances  resemble  those 
12* 


138 

Jewish  washings  to  which  I  have  now  adverted,  yet 
it  was  precisely  Uke  them  in  that  main  particular  of 
immersion  in  water." — /  /.  Gurney  on  ike  pecul.  of 
Fr lends y  j9.  61. 

"  Whenever,  in  the  law  of  washing,  the  flesh  or 
clothes  is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the 
dipping  of  the  whole  body  in  the  bath ;  for  if  any  one. 
dips  himself  all  over  except  the  tip  of  his  little  finger, 
he  is  still  in  his  uncleanness." — Maimonides  Hilch. 
Mikva^  chapt.  1,  sect.  2. 

"  Dipping,  among  the  Jews,  was  a  national  custom." 
— Lig/itfoofs  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  585. 

Mr.  Sawyer  next  quotes  Judith  xii.  7  :  "  She  abode 
in  the  camp  three  days,  and  went  out  in  the  night  into 
the   valley  of  Bethulia,  and  s^annlsTo  {dipped)  sv  t^ 

nagsjuSoh]    em  Trjg  mj-p];  tov    vdaw;,    washed    herself  in  a 

fountain  of  water  by  the  camp  ;"  and  remarks,  that 
"  fanrt'cw,  baptize,  expresses  ceremonial  cleansing,  by 
some  mode  differins:  from  immersion." 

Maimonides,  the  great  Jewish  author,  who  ought  to 
know  as  much  concerning  the  langu nge  and  customs 
of  the  Jews  as  Mr.  Sawyer  does,  says.  '-A  menstruous 
woman,  as  also  all  other  unclean  persons,  were  wash- 
ed in  some  confluence  of  waters,  in  which  so  much 
water  ought  to  be  as  may  serve  to  wash  the  whole 
hody  at  one  dipping-.  Our  wise  men  have  esteemed 
this  to  be  a  cubit  square,  and  three  cubits  deep,  and 
this  measure  contains  40  seahs  (80  gallons)  of  water." 
— Lightfoofs  Works,  vol.  2,  p.  119. 

''  In  the  days  of  R.  Joshua  Ben  Levi,  some  endeav- 
ored to  abolish  this  dipping,  for  the  sake  of  the  vwmen 
of  Galilee,  because  by  reason  of  the  cold,  «fec.  R.  Josh- 
ua Ben  Levi  said  unto  them,  Do  you  go  about  to  take 
away  that  which  hedges  in  Israel  from  transgress- 
ion V—Hleros  Beracoth,  fol.  6,  3. 

"  The  baptism  of  John  was  by  phinging  the  bod 
after  the  same  manner  of  the  washing  of  unclean  per- 


'  139 

sons,  and  the  baptism  of  proselytes." — Lighifoot's 
Works,  vol.  2,  p.  121. 

That  Judith  washed,  is  probable  ;  but  it  is  not  con- 
tained iu  the  text.  Does  it  follow,  because  bciptisnn  is 
performed  for  the  purpose  of  loasliing^  that  baptism 
and  washing  are  the  same  thing?  Mr.  Sawyer  might 
just  as  well  give  cool  as  the  rendering  of  ^utttCo),  be- 
cause hot  iron  is  ^a7tTit,a),  (dipped.)  to  cool  it.  Judith's 
washing  or  cleansing  was  but  an  eifect  of  immersing 
herself;  and  it  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  fountains  in 
that  hot  climate  were  uniformdy  provided  with  conven- 
iences for  bathing  ;  and  if  she  simply  wished  to  sprin- 
kle her  feet,  or  wash  her  hands,  why  did  she  go  under 
the  cover  of  niglu  ? 

Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv.  25:  "He  that  ^uTtTi'coftsiog  arm 
vsicgov  washeth  himself  after  the  touching  of  a  dead 
body,  if  he  toucheth  it  again,  what  availeth  his  wash- 
ing ?"  Mr.  Sawyer  says,  p.  7,  •'  The  mode  of  cleansing 
designated  is  that  prescribed  by  Ttloses,  Numb.  xix.  19, 
and  consists  ofsprinkling  and  washing,  but  not  imer- 
sion  or  dipping."  But  that  this  ceremonial  bathing' 
was  total  immersion,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  is 
denoted  by  binu)  dip  or  imxmsrse,  in  the  Hebrew. 

"The  baptisms  with  the  Jews  were  not  by  sprink- 
ling. The  Hebrew  b^it:  dip  cannot  possibly  signify 
sprinkle  ;  baptism  is  never  in  the  New  Testament 
compared  with  Levitical  sprinklings,  but  with  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.'' — jSUirck^s  Hist.'of 
Bapt.  p.  8. 

That  sprinkling  is  named  at  Numb.  xix.  19,  is  true  ; 
and  so  is  bathing.  These  were  two  distinct  actions, 
and  both  were  enjoined :  first  sprinkle  with  the  water 
of  purification;  and  then  immerse  in  water.  We  do 
not  contend  that  the  Levitical  sprinklings  were  immer- 
sions; but  that  their  bathings  were,  is  evident,  not 
only  from  this  text,  but  also  from  Levit.  xv.  5,  8,  11, 
13,21,22,27:  xvi.  26— 28:  xvii.  15, 16:  Numb.  xix. 


140 

r,  8,  19:    Levit.  xiv.  9:    xvi.  4,  24 :    xxii.  6 :    Deut 

xxiii.  11:  2  Chion.  iv.  6. 

"Unclean  persons  were  immersed,  and  purified  by 
spviuk\in'y"-^Theodo7'et  com.  on  Heh.  ix.  10. 

"In  proselyte  baptism,  the  male  after  circumcision  is 
led  into  the  water,  and  completely  immerses  himself.** 
— Schneckenhurger,  Pros.  Bapt.  ]?.  141. 

"As  in  the  Jewish  custom  the  persons  stood  in  the 
water,  and  having  been  instructed,  and  entered  into  a 
covenant  to  renounce  all  idolatry  and  take  the  God  of 
Israel  tor  their  God,  then  plunge  themselves  under 
the  water;  it  is  probable  that  the  rite  was  thus  per- 
formed at  Enon."  Dr,  A.  Clarices  cG?nme?it  on  John 
iil  23. 

Mr.  Sawyer  next  quotes  Mark  vii.  3,  4:  "For  the 
Pharisees  arid  all  the  Jews,  except  they  vn^ijjvTut,,  {wash 
their  hands.)  oil,  eat  not,  holding  the  traduions  of  the 
elders  ;  and  (when  they  came)  from  the  market,  ex- 
cept tliey  ^uTzngoivmi,  (im??ierse  themselves,)  they  eat 
not;  and  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have 
received  to  hold,  as  the  ^itmig^ovg  (immersing)  of  cups 
and  potSjbrazen  vessels  and  o[  xli,vo)v,(J)eds.)  Mr.  Saw- 
yer says,  p.  10,  that  these  persons  and  things  were  not 
immersed,  but  sprinkled,  and  assigns  as  a  reason,  "the 
unreasonableness  of  baptizing  beds."  But  on  this 
principle  he  could  as  well  decide  that,  Gen.  vii.  15, 
"  two  of  all  flesh  wherein  is  breath  of  life"  did  not  go 
into  the  ark;  and,  Col.  ii.  9,  the  fullness  of  the  God- 
head bodily  did  not  dwell  in  Jesus  Christ.  The  fact 
that  ^urcii;^o}i'Tai  {Uiey  immerse)  is  used  in  the  4th  verse 
to  distinouish  the  action  from  vnpb)VTav,  [they  wash 
hands^)  in  the  3d  verse,  fully  proves  that  they  did  im- 
merse themselves. 

Again,  this  washing  of  hands  was  done  by  all  the 
Jews.,  young  and  old,  male  and  female,  at  each  time  of 
matins: ;  while  the  immersion  (verse  4)  was  only  per- 
formed by  the  individual  who  had  been  at  the  market, 


141 

which  probably  did  not  occur  more  than  once  a  week  j 
and  in  addition  to  etymology  and  circumstances,  we 
have  the  testimony  of  the  most  able  Jewish  writers, 
who  were  eye  witnesses  to  the  Jewish  ceremonies.  "  If 
the  Pharisees  touched  but  the  garments  of  the  common 
people,  they  were  defiled  all  one  as  if  they  had  touch- 
ed a  profluvious  person,  and  needed  immersion?^ — 
Misna  Chagi,  chap,  2,  sec.  7. 

"  In  a  laver  which  holds  forty  seahs  of  water,  every 
defiled  man  clips  himself,  except  a  profluvious  man; 
and  in  it  they  dip  all  unclean  vessels." — Mai?nonides 
Hilch.  Mikvaotj  chap.  9,  sec.  5. 

"  Mark  vii.  4  :  They  bathed  their  whole  persons." — 
Vatabiiis  Prof,  of  Hebrew  in  Paris. 

"John  ii.  6  :  There  were  set  there  six  water  pots,  (fet . 
They  were  placed  there,  some  of  them  for  the  cleans- 
ing of  cups  and  tables,  and  others  for  such  purifica- 
tions as  required  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body," — 
Dr.  Mack  nigh  fs  Harmony^  sec.  19. 

Tiidt  the  cups,  pots,  Szc.  were  immersed,  is  evident. 
"He  that  buys  a  vessel  for  the  use  of  a  feast,  of  a  gen- 
tile, v^rheiher  a  molten  or  orlass  vessel,  'i'-"*  -^^  ihei/  dip 
them  in  the  waters  of  the  laver,  and  after  that  they 
may  eat  and  drink  in  them ;  and  such  as  they  use  for 
cold  things,  as  cups  and  pots  and  jugs,  they  wash 
them,  T^'^SLJ^T  a?id  dip  them  and  they  are  free  for  use  ; 
and  such  as  they  use  for  hot  things,  as  cauldrons  and 
kettles,  (brazen  vessels.)  they  heat  them  with  hot  wa- 
ter, and.  scour  them,  tb'^iu^T  and  immerse  ihem.^^ — 
Maimonides  Hilch.  Abot,  Hatvmaot,  chap.  12,  sec.  6 

Jewish  beds  were  very  different  thin^rs  from  our 
beds.  They  were  such  as  a  uvcu  just  recovered  from 
the  palsy  could  take  under  his  arm  and  carry  home 
with  him.  Matt.  ix.  2—6  :  Mark  ii.  9  :  Johnv.  11, 12; 
and  that  they  were  immersed  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
Jewish  writers,  who  ought  to  understand  their  own 
laws  and  language  as  well  as  Mr.  Sawyer,  say, 


142 

"A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  ^rVrtilTi  he  dips  it 
part  by  part,  it  is  pure." — Misna  celim,  chap.  18,  sec.  5, 

''ti'QJzr  m  12  b^riDn  if  he  dips  the  bed  in  it,  (the  pool 
of  water,)  although  its  feet  are  plun2:ed  into  the  thick 
clay,  (at  the  bottom  of  the  pool.)  it  is  clean. 

nODMT  "iDJi  a  pillow  or  bolster  of  skin,  when  a  man 
lifts  up  the  euds  or  month  of  them  out  of  the  v/ater, 
the  water  which  is  within  them  will  be  drawn  ;  what 
fihall  he  do?  t^'int:^  hs  must  dip  them,  and  lift  them 
op  by  their  friui^e." — Misna  Mikvaot,  chap.  7,  sec.   7. 

The  original  law  for  immersing  all  these  things  is 
at  Levit.  xi.  32  :  xiv.  6— 8  :  Numb.  xxxi.  23,  24  ;  buJ 
lo  this  law  many  traditions  were  added. 

The  above  immersions  of  persons,  vessels  and  beds, 
fully  explain  Heb.  ix.  10  :  dia(poQoig  (?«7rnc^o*c,  diver$ 
washings;  which  were  not  different  actions,  as  pour- 
ing, sprinkling,  and  immersing,  but  immersions  on  di- 
Ters  subjects  and  different  occasions.  That  §uniia^oiq^ 
Terse  10,  does  not  mean  or  include  sprinkling,  but 
■lands  opposed  to  it,  and  means  immersion,  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  Paul  drops  ^anngua,  immerse^  and 
iind  use:  gavniot^  sprinkle ,  verses  13,  19,  21,  of  the 
fame  chapter. 

"  Divers  immersions  and  ordinances  concerning 
the  fl(:;sh." — Macknighfs  Translation. 

"  Jewish  baptism  is  a  solemn  rite,  instituted  by  God, 
in  which  proselytes  of  both  sexes,  in  the  presence  of 
three  credible  witnesses,  are  dipped  in  water." — Re%9- 
kius. 

The  Talmud  Tract,  Repudii,  speaking  of  Jethro, 
Moses'  father-in-law,  says,  "  he  was  made  a  proselyte 
by  circumcision  and  immersion  in  water." 

Mr.  S;nvyer's  effort,  p.  12,  to  identify  bst:  dip,  nisn*^ 
toash^  and  tiT:  sprinkle,  is  as  unsuccessful  as  his  at^ 
tempt,  p.  13,  to  find  ^umt^oj  in  the  Septuagint,  at  Ex. 
xxix.  4 :  Levit.  viii.  6 ;  xiv.  4 — 9  :  Numb,  viii,  6 : 
jcix.  17—19. 


143 


SECTION      III. 

Waters  of  Palestine. 

Mr.  Sawyer  says,  p.  11,  "During  a  lar^e  part  of 
the  year,  and  in  many  parts  of  the  country,  water  ia 
extremely  scarce,"  so  that  immersion  could  not  be  per- 
formed. Deut.  viii.  7  :  "For  the  Lord  thy  God  bring- 
eth  thee  into  a  good  land,  a  land  of  brooks  of  water, 
of  fountains  and  depths,  that  spring  out  of  the  valleys 
and  hills."  Palestine  is  about  200  miles  long  and  80 
wide  ;  bounded  on  the  west  by  the  Mediterranean  sea. 
The  springs  of  Jordan  lie  west  of  the  city  of  Dan,  in 
the  north  of  Palestine.  The  lake  Phila  is  12  miles 
south  of  Dan  ;  15  miles  further  south  is  lake  Same- 
chon,  7  miles  long  and  4  wide  :  2S  miles  further  south 
is  the  sea  of  Galilee,  13  miles  long  and  5  wide;  and 
still  further  south  is  the  Dead  Sea,  76  miles  long  and 
18  wide,  (Josephus'  War,  Book  4,  chap.  8,  sec,  4.)  or 
24  miles  long  and  7  wide,  (Brown's  Bible  Dictionary.) 

The  Rivers  of  Palestine  are  the  Jordan^  160  miles 
long,  30  yards  wide,  and  so  deep  that  a  miracle  wa& 
wrought  to  let  the  Jews  cross  it ;  Joshua  iii.  14 — 16: 
2  Kings  ii.  14;  the  river  Kishon  Judges  iv.  7 — 13  j 
the  river  Aaron,  Deut.  iii.  16 ;  the  river  Gad,  2  Sam. 
xxiv.  5;  the  river  Jabock,  Joshua  xii.  2.  The 
Brooks  Cherit/i,  1  Kings,  xvii.  3 ;  Eschol,  Numb, 
xiii.  23,  24;  Jtruel,  2  Chron.  xx.  16:  Besor,  1 
Sam.  XXX.  10 ;  Kidron,  2  Sam.  xv.  23 :  John  xviii. 
I;  Gaash,  2  Sam.. xxiii.  30;  Kishon,  1  Kings  xviiL 
40.  "  And  in  a  country  so  abounding  with  hilli 
as  Canaan,  it  is  probable  that  valleys  and  brooks 
were  seldom  separate."  (Brown's  Bible  Dictionary.) 
There  were  also  many  Pools,  as  the  Pool  of  Samaria, 
I  Kings  xxii.  38;  the  Upper  Pool,  2  Kings  xviii.  17: 
the  King's  Pool,  Neh.  ii.  14 ;  the  Lower  Pool,  Isa.  xxii. 
9;  the  Old  Pool.  Isa.  xxii.  11 ;  the  Pool  of  Bethesda^ 


144 

John  V.  2,  which  Maundrell  says  is  120  paces  long 
and  40  wide  ;  and  the  Pool  of  Siloam,  John  ix.  7 — 11, 
nearly  the  size  of  Bethesda.  "  Besides  all  these  pub- 
lic conveniences  for  immersion,  there  were  many  mik- 
waoth  or  collections  of  water  in  the  form  of  hathin^- 
houses,  for  the  puriScation  of  unclean  persons  and 
vessels,  required  by  the  law  of  Moses,  (See  Levit.  xv. 
16:  Numb.  xix.  7,  8,)  which  was  always  by  immer- 
fiion." — J.  S.  C.  F.  Frey^  a  Jewish  JRabbi,  Essay  on 
Bapt.  p.  1U9. 

"  The  Spring  (Siloe)  issues  from  a  rock,  and  the 
pool,  or  rather  two  pools  of  the  same  name,  (Siloam) 
are  quite  close  to  the  spring;  here  you  find  a  village 
called  Siloam.  At  the  fool  of  this  village  is  another 
fountain,  denominated  in  Scripture,  Rogel  ;  opposite 
to  this  is  a  third  which   receives  its  name   from  the 

blessed    Virgin we    have   nothing   left     of  the 

primitive  architecture  of  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem,  ex- 
cept the  pool  of  Bethesda.  This  is  still  to  be  seen 
near  St  Stephen's  Gate,  and  it  bounded  the  Temple 
on  the  north.'' — Chaieaubriand^s  travels,  p.  311,  31Q 
—353. 

Dr.  Gill  has  conclusively  proved  that  there  were 
twelve  large  reservoirs  for  immersing,  within  the 
Temple.  These,  together  with  the  pool  of  Bethesda, 
adjoininof  the  Temple,  and  other  waters  above  named, 
not  only  served  for  the  baptizing  of  converts  on  the  day 
of  Penterost,  A.  D.  33,  but  were  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  muititude  of  Jews  assembled  (Acts  ii.  o — 11)  to 
bathe  in,  acGording  to  the  law  of  Moses  ;  (Lev.  xvi.  4: 
xvii.  14 — 16:  xxii.  6:  Dent,  xxiii.  11;)  which  bath- 
ings Mr.  Sawyer  assures  us,  p.  1,  "  were  of  daily  occur- 
rence among  the  Jews,  in  every  period  of  their  nation- 
al existence."  Hence  he  who  pleads  that  Jerusalem 
and  the  surrounding  country  was  so  destitute  of  wa- 
ter that  immersion  could  not  be  performed,  must  bo 
ignorant  of  Bible  and  geography ;    for  both  represent 


145 

Palestine  bountifully  furnished  with  conveniences 
for  immersion,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  Apostles  and 
John  used  them  ,'  for  we  find  them  baptizing  in  Jordan, 
and  at  Eanon,  because  there  was  ■6daTa  noUa,  much  wa- 
ter there.  And  we  have  no  evidence  that  the  water 
was  brought  to  the  candidate  in  a  boiol  or  basin ;  but 
the  candidate  went  to,  and  into  the  water,  as  the  Bap- 
tists do  now.  Matt.  iii.  16  :  John  iii.  23  :  Mark  i.  10  : 
Acts  viii.  36—39. 


SECTION      IV. 

Of  Sprinkling  and  its  Origin. 

The  word  Pavn'c^o)  from  Paivw,  is  translated  sprin- 
kle. Therefore  if  this  were  the  action  of  baptism,  we 
should  have  it  in  plain  English,  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  ''  Go 
teach  all  nations,  sprinkling  them,  &c  ;"  but  the  word 
sprinkle,  is  in  no  instance  connected  with  baptizing, 
nor  is  the  sprinkling  of  water  without  putting  ashes, 
blood,  or  some  other  substance  in  it,  found  in  the  Bible, 
Blood,  Lev.  vii.  2  :  xiv.  7 — 51 :  xvi.  14  :  Heb.  ix,  13 
—19  :  xi.  28  :  xii.  24  :  1  Peter  i.  2.  Ashes,  Ex.  ix. 
8 — 10.  Ashes  and  water  mixed,  Num.  xix.  13 — 18, 
19,  20,  21.  Oil,  Lev.  xiv.  16—27.  Dust,  Job  ii.  12. 
Not  7ianied,  Isa.  Iii.  15  :  Heb.  x.  22.  Water,  (Spirit 
of  God,)  Ez.  xxxvi.  25.  The  Spirit  and  its  gra- 
ces are  represented  by  water  at  Isa.  Iv.  1  :  John  iv. 
14  :  vii.  37,  39  :  Rev.  xxii.  17.  The  first  appearance 
of  pouring  for  baptism,  was  in  the  eighth  century, 
when  baptism  was  considered  necessary  to  salvation 
by  all  the  Roman  Catholics.  As  there  were  frequent 
cases  of  unbaptized  clinics,  (sick  persons,)  who  were 
much  distressed,  lest  dying  unbaptized  they  should  be 
lost,  the  monks  invented  pouring  water  on  them. 

A.  D.  753,  Pope  Stephen  III.  was  driven  from  Rome 
13 


14(5 

by  Astulphus,  king  of  tie  Lombardsj  and  put  himself 
under  the  protection  of  Pepin,  king  of  France.  Dur- 
ing Stephen's  residence  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Dennis, 
some  monks  of  Cressy,  in  Brittany,  proposed  to  him 
19  questions,  one  of  which  was,  '•  If  pouring  water  on 
the  head  of  the  sick  and  dying  would  be  baptism?" 
To  which  he  replied,  that  "  In  such  cases  of  necessity, 
pouring  should  be  baptism."  From  this  decision 
arose  the  private  baptism  of  the  sick  by  pouring,  but 
immersion,  trine  or  single,  was  still  universally  ad- 
ministered to  the  healthy.  But  it  soon  became  a 
question  what  degree  of  sickness  should  prevent  immer- 
sion ;  and  as  many  infants  died  scon  after  they  were 
born,  and  some  even  before,  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
salvation  drove  the  priests  and  monks  among  the  m.id- 
wives,  and  introduced  indecencies  which  1  forbear  to 
mention.  The  want  of  water  at  hand,  and  the  want 
of  suitable  tubs  to  dip  in,  tosfether  with  other  circum- 
stances not  necessary  to  name,  led  the  priests  to  plead 
for  pouring  instead  of  dipping  ;  but  this  doctrine  of  Ban- 
tizing  was  so  repugnant  to  the  feelings  of  the  Catho- 
lics themselves,  that  they  never  obtained  a  public  act 
in  favor  of  it,  till  A.  D.  1311,  when  the  council  of  Ra- 
vena,  (in  Italy.)  by  the  Pope's  authority,  declared 
dipping  or  sprinkling,  indifferent.  While  the  Catho- 
lics had  the  control  of  Englnnd,  they  uniformly  im- 
mersed ;  and  the  Episcopal  Rubric  which  was  estab- 
lished by  law  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  reads,  "  Then  the 
priest  shall  take  the  child  into  his  hands  and  shall  say 
unto  the  Godfather  and  Godmother,  name  this  child. 
And  naming  it  after  them,  if  they  certify  that  the 
child  may  well  endure  it,  he  shall  dip  it  in  the  wa- 
ter, discreetly  and  warily,  saying,  N.,  I  baptise  thee  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  amen.  But  if  they  certify  that  the  child 
is  weak,  it  shall  suffice  to  pour  water  upon  it. — Brit- 
ish Rubric,  under  baptism. 


147 

During  the  bloody  persecution  of  Mary,  Queen  of 
England,  A.  D.  1554—8,  many  English  and  Scotch 
Protestants  iled  to  Germany  for  refuge,  and  there  form- 
ed a  society.  In  A.  D.  1556,  Calvin  published  a 
book  for  the  benefit  of  these  Protestants,  entitled,  "The 
form  of  prayers,  and  administration  of  the  Sacraments, 
appro\Aed  by  the  famous  and  Godly  learned  man,  John 
Calvin."  The  form  of  baptism  prescribed  by  this 
was,  "  The  priest  shall  take  the  water  in  his  hand 
and  lay  it  on  the  child's  forehead,  sayings,  I  baptize  thee, 
dbc." 

John  Knox  with  other  refugees,  returned  to  Scot- 
land, A.  D.  1559,  and  brouj^ht  with  them  Calvin^s 
book  and  new  doctrine  of  sprinkling,  and  it  was  estab- 
lished by  law  with  the  rest  of  their  creed,  A.  D.  1560  ; 
snd  from  Scotland  it  spread  into  England  and  Ameri- 
ca. But  still  the  law  of  the  church  of  England  en- 
joined dipping,  and  in  the  Presbyterian  assembly  of 
49  Divines,  convened  at  Westminster,  (near  London,) 
A.  D.  1043,  the  subject  Vv^as  keenly  debated  for  several 
days,  and  finally  decided  hj  a  vote  of  twenty-five  for 
sprinkling,  and  twenty-four  for  immersion.  And  even 
this  small  majority  was  obtained  at  the  earnest  request 
of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  had  acquired  great  influence  in 
that  assembly."- — Dr.  Brevjster^s  Ed.  En.  Art.  Bapt. 

"  The  custom  of  sprinkling  children  instead  of  dip- 
ping them  in  the  fount,  which  at  first  vv^as  allowed  on- 
ly in  case  of  weakness  or  sickness  of  the  infant,  has  so 
far  prevailed,  that  immersion  is  at  length  quite  exclu- 
ded. Yv^hat  principally  tended  to  confirm  the  practice 
of  eifusion  or  sprinklino;,  was  that  several  of  our  Pro- 
testant Divines,  flying  into  Germany  and  Switzerland 
during  the  bloody  reign  of  Q,Lieen  Mary,  and  returning 
home  when  Elizabetii  came  to  the  crov/n,  brouo:htback 
with  them  a  great  zeal  for  the  Protestant  churches  be- 
yond the  sea,  where  they  had  been  received  and  shel- 
tered ;   and  having  observed  that  at  Geneva  and  soma 


148 

other  places,  baptism  was  administered  by  sprinkling, 
they  thought  they  could  not  do  the  church  of  England 
a  greater  piece  of  service,  than  to  introduce  a  practice 
dictated  by  so  great  an  oracle  as  Calvin.  This,  to- 
gether with  the  coldness  of  our  northern  climate, 
was  what  contributed  to  banish  entirely  the  practice 
of  dipping  infants  in  the  fount. — Enc.  Perth.  Vol.  3, 
p.  256. 

"The  practice  of  aspersion  or  sprinkling,  was  bro't 
into  the  church  by  the  Popish  school  m.en ;  and  our 
dissenters  have  it  from  them.  The  schoolmen  em- 
ployed their  thoughts  how  to  find  out  a  reason  for  the 
alteration  to  sprinkling  ;  and  brought  it  into  use  in  the 
twelfth  century."  ■ — John  Floyer.  Essay  on  bapt.  p.  58. 

All  the  Nations  of  Christians  that  do  now,  or  for- 
merly did  submit  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  do  sprinkle  ; 
and  though  the  English  received  not  this  custom  till 
after  the  decay  of  Popery,  yet  they  have  since  re- 
ceived it  from  such  neighboring  nations  as  had  began 
it  in  the  time  of  the  Pope's  power.  But  all  other 
Christians  in  the  world,  who  never  owned  the  Pope's 
usurped  power,  do,  and  ever  dlp.^^ — Dr.  Wally  hist,  of 
infant  bapt.  part  2,  p.  477. 


SECTION    V. 

Versions  of  the  Bible. 

The  old  Syriac  or  Peshito,  was  translated  from  the 
original  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  and 
in  the  very  country  where  the  Apostles  Uved,  and  by 
persons  who  understood  both  languages,  and  within  a 
few  years  past,  it  has  been  reprinted  by  the  British 
and  foreign  Bible  Society,  and  is  used  by  all  Christians 
in  Syria  and  the  East.  In  this  version,  ^ann'ro)  is  ren- 
dered (.i^ii  amadj   immerse.     The  Ethiopic  or  Aby- 


149 

ian  in  the  Gheez,  was  translated  from  the  origineil, 
about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  In  this  ver- 
sion §a7ir^t,(.o  is  t-ranslated  by  p^t3  Tamak,  immerse. 
The  Amharic  in  the  common  dialect  of  Ethiopia,  was 
translated  by  Mr.  Abraham,  a  learned  Ethiopian,  and 
was  published  by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Soci- 
ety, A.  D.  1822,  in  which  ^umitoi  is  rendered  p^S3  Ta- 
mak, immerse.  The  ancient  Armenian  version  was 
made  by  Miesrob,  and  the  patriarch  Isac,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifth  century,  in  which  8anTi^co  is  rendered 
mugurdel^  itninerse.  See  Mekitar  Vartabed  Diction- 
ary of  the  Armenian  Language,  Yenice,  A.  D.  1749, 
and  Home's  Introduction,  Yol.  2,  p.  208. 

The  modern  Armenian  version,  printed  and  circu- 
lated by  the  Russian,  and  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Societies,  translate  ^utxto'co},  miigurdel,  immerse.  The 
Georgian  version,  made  in  the  eighth  century  by  Eu- 
phemius,  renders  §ami';o)^  nathlistemad^  im7nerse. — 
RohinsGri's  hist,  of  Bapt.  p.  7. 

The  Coptic,  made  in  the  fifth  century,  and  used  in 
Lower  Egypt,  renders  ^aTtn'Qw.TSlMC^  tomas,  immerse. 
— See  Louis  Picques,  in  Le  Long  Biblioth,  Sac.  Pars 
1,  p.  287,  and  the  anual  report  of  the  English  Baptist 
Mission  Society,  for  A.  D.  1834,  p.  32. 

The  several  Arabic  versions  of  the  New  Testament 
which  were  made  between  the  seventh  and  eleventh 
centuries,  render  j9a;rTt^c.j,cA4.c  amad  cajo  tzabag  or 
iviAA2Jhi  gatas,  dij)^  'plunge^  immerse.  The  Persian 
four  gospels,  were  translated  by  J.J.  Al  Tabrizi,  A.  D. 
1341,  and  the  whole  New  Testament,  by  Meer  Seyd 
Ali,  A.  D.  1812,  and  published  at  Petersburgh,  Lon- 
don and  Calcutta.  This  version  renders  ^amiloi 
T^S»J!L^uj  Shustgah^  \j^L  ghusl,  and  the  derivative 
of  iXfJO.  a?7iad,  ablution,  immerse.  The  Turkish 
Tersion  of  the  New  Testament,  written  by  Albertus 
Boboosky,  and  published  by  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  A.  D.  1819,  renders  ^amti^co  <-X^c  am- 
13* 


150 

ady  immerse.  The  Orenberg  Tartar,  published  hy 
the  Russian  Bible  Society,  renders  ^anttt^co^  L\^c  am- 
ad,  immerse.  The  first  Hebrew  version  of  the  New- 
Testament,  translated  by  Elias  Hutter.  A.  D.  1599, 
renders  §anTvroi,  ^^t:  taval^  immerse.  The  old  Latin 
Italic  version,  adopted  the  word  ^anTiroo  without  trans- 
lating it ;  but  that  they  understood  it  immerse,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that  the  MSS.  Codex  Vercellensis, 
and  Codex  Veronensis,  uniformily  construct  ^amitpt 
with   the    accusative  case.     Thus,  Matt.  iii.  6,  Cod. 

Tercel,  "  et  baptizaban- ab  illo  io  Jordanen."     Cod. 

Veron,  '■  et  baptizabantur danen,"  and  were  bap- 
tized by  him  into  the  Jordan.  Verse  11,  Cod.  Yeron., 
"  baptizo  Yos  in  aquam,''  I  baptize  you  into  water. 
Yerse  13,  Cod.  Yeroo.,  "Tunc  A^enit  Jesus  a  Galilaea 
ajd  Johannen  ut  baptizaretur  ab  eo  in  Jordanen," 
Then  came  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  John,  that  he  might 
be  baptized  by  him  into  the  Jordan." — See  Evangelia- 
rum  Quadruplex  ed  J.  Blanchini,  Rome  A.  D.  1749. 
Jaspis,  an  eminent  German  scholar,  renders  ^arcTita 
by  immergo,  immerse,  or  lingo,  to  dip.  The  Goth- 
ic, was  translated  from  the  Greek  by  Uphilas  in  the 
fourth  century.  Of  this  version,  we  have  only  the 
four  gospels,  and  a  part  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
But  in  these,  he  renders  §amilb),  daupyan,  to  dip. 
He  renders  Mark  vii.  4,  on  which  there  has  been  some 
dispute,  '•'  ni  daupyand,"  unless  they  dip :  and  many 
other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to 
hold,  as  "daupeinins,"  the  dippings  of  cups,  and 
pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  couches.  The  German 
translation,  from  the  Latin  Yulgate,  printed  in  1466, 
and  Luther's  translation  which  was  published  in  sev- 
eral parts  or  numbers,  between  1522  and  1532,  and 
the  translation  of  Caspar  Ulenburg  in  1630,  all  render 
^anTit.M,  .taufen,  dip.  Gesenius  classes  taufen,  with 
,ttie  Gothic    doufan,  (daupyan,)  the  Ital.  tuff  are  and 


151 

other  words  signifying  to  dip^  and  says  it  is  identical 
inform  with  the  Heb.  taval,  to  dip^  to  immerse. 

M.  Luther  says,  "  the  Germans  call  baptism,  iauff, 
from  depth,  which  in  their  language  they  call  tieff^as 
it  is  proper  that  those  who  are  baptized  should  be  deep- 
ly immersed."  The  German  Swiss  or  Helvetic  ver- 
sion, made  by  John  Piscator,  in  1604.  and  the  transla- 
tion made  by  Jo.  Henry  Reizius,  in  1703,  both  render 
^(XTtTi'Qiji  taufen^  and  explain  it  in  the  margin  by  eir^ 
tauchen^  and  use  the  same  word  at  Mark  vii.  4 :  Luke 
xi.  38  :  Heb.  vi.  2  :  ix.  10  :  thus  making  it  certain 
that  these  texts  teach  dipping.  The  Jewish  German 
translation,  pubhshed  at  London  a  few  years  since, 
renders  ^ami^oi  taiifen^  dip.  The  Belgian  or  Flem- 
ish translation  made  from  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  1475, 
republished  by  the  Synod  of  Dort  in  1637,  renders 
§tt7tTv'Qo)  doopen,  dip.  The  Danish  version,  made  from 
tile  Latin  vultrate,  as  well  as  that  which  was  translated 
from  Luther's  version,  by  order  of  Christian  HI.  kin^ 
of  Denmark,  in  1550,  and  the  version  made  by  order 
oi  Christian  IV.  king  of  Denmark,  from  the  original 
Greek,  in  1607,  all  render  ^urcTirw  dobe,  dip.  The 
Swedish  Bible  was  made  from  Luther's  version,  at  Up- 
sal,  in  1541,  and  was  afterwards  revised  and  made  to 
conform  with  the  original,  by  order  of  Charles  XO. 
king  of  Sweden,  in  1703.  This  version  renders  ^an- 
%i,'Q(x)  dopa,  dip.  The  Welsh  translation  of  the  New 
Testament  was  first  made  by  order  of  Parliament,  in 
1567.  During  the  reign  of  James  1.  it  was  corrected 
and  republished  by  Dr.  Parry,  in  1620.  In  this  version 
§(xnTit,(a  is  rendered  bedyddiojimmcr^e.  Edward  Lhuyd, 
a  learned  Welshman,  says,  "Bedydd,  the  Welsh  word 
for  baptism,  is  derived  from  suddiant,  a  British  word, 
which  is  well  known  to  signify  dippings  or  immer- 
sion^ and  the  verb  of  which  is  suddo." — (See  articU 
Baptisma,  in  Lhuyd's  Arch.  Brit.  comp.  vocab.  Ed.  in 
1707. 


152 

The  Sclavonian,  or  Old  Russian  translation  of  the 
New  Testament,  was  made  by  Cyril  and  Methodius, 
in  1570.  The  Russian  being  a  branch  of  the  Greek 
-church,  uniformly  practiced  immersion,  but  they  add- 
ed the  sign  of  the  cross,  which  they  considered  the  es- 
sential part  of  baptism ;  therefore  they  tranlated  ^avt- 
xito)  krestit,  to  cross.  Thus,  Matt.  iii.  5,  6  :  "  There 
went  out  unto  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  region  round 
about  Jordan,  and  were  crossed  by  him  in  Jordan." 
The  New  Testament  made  by  order  of  emperor  Alex- 
ander, in  18J.6j  which  was  finished  at  Moscow  in  1822, 
retains  krestit^  yet  every  reader  knows  that  the  Rus- 
sian church  uniformly  dips. 

The  Romanese  language  is  divided  into  two  dialects. 
The  Churivelsche  is  spoken  by  those  of  Engadine,  a 
valley  of  Switzerland;  and  the  Ladiniche  by  those 
v/ho  live  on  the  confines  of  Italy.  In  each  of  these 
versions  they  have  adopted  the  word  §amir^(o  without 
translating  it. 

Of  the  English  versions  we  can  only  say,  WickliiFe's 
was  made  in  1380,  TindaPs  in  1526,  Coverdale's  in 
1535,  Mathew's  in  1537,  Cranmer's  in  1539,  Tonstal's 
in  1541,  Geneva  in  1560,  Bishops'  in  1568.  All  these 
versions  followed  the  Latin  vulgate  in  adopting  ^umiito 
only  changing  the  Greek  w  omega  for  the  Roman  e. 
dueen  Elizabeth  was  immersed  in  infancy;  still,  she 
ordered  all  Baptists  to  leave  the  kingdom,  and  allowed 
two  of  them  to  be  burnt  at  Smithfield,  July  22d,  1575. 
About  this  time  the  English  bishops  began  to  practice 
gprinkling,  having  borrowed  it  of  the  Scotch  ;  and  in 
the  time  of  this  rage  for  Baptist  blood  and  Calvin's 
sprinkling,  our  version  of  the  Bible  was  made.  King 
James  I.  succeeded  Elizabeth  in  1603,  and  although 
immersion  was  still  established  by  law,  yet  sprinkling 
in  practice  was  constantly  gaining  the  ascendency. 
A.  D.  1610,  James  made  our  version  ;  and  April  11th, 
1613,  he  burned  at  Litchfield  Mr.  Edward  Wightman 


153 

of  Barton  upon  Trent,  for  being  a  Baptist.  Such  was 
the  spirit  of  the  monarch  who  ordered  the  forty-seven 
translators  to  "  conform  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the 
Bishops'  Bible,  and  to  adopt  and  not  translate  the  old 
ecclesiastical  words,"  such  as  ^Xag(p7]ixsca,  blaspheme  : 
afi7]v,  amen  ;  ayyslog,  angel ;  'Qr/log,  zealous  ;  Bi^log,  Bi- 
ble ;  rsvegig,  Genesis  ;  exy.X}]gia,  congregation  ;  rnXogy 
title;  xog^av,  COrhan  ;  cpdogocpi^a,  philosophy;  xaorxxxriq^ 
character  ;  ^pal-aog  psalms  ;  «  and  w,  alpha  and  omega; 
orvvayojyrj,  synagogiie  ;  2a§§aTov,  Sabbath  ;  ^ia^ry^,martyr; 
itadoliKog,  catholic  ;  apadsuuTtXco,  anathematize  ;  pfajTrt^w, 
baptize.  To  some  of  these  words  we  have  given  ap- 
propriate significations  in  English  ;  while  blaspheme, 
corban,  alpha  and  omega,  synagogue,  church,  anathe- 
matize, and  especially  baptize,  are  constantly  perplex- 
ing the  unlearned. 

Persons  who  have  not  thought  extensively  on  ths 
subject,  look  upon  our  version  as  the  only  Bible  ;  or, 
if  they  know  there  are  other  translations,  they  suppose 
them  all  the  same.  But  each  Christian  nation  has 
the  Bible  in  its  own  language.  Some  are  translations 
from  the  originals  ;  others  are  translations  from  trans- 
lations. Some  have  translated  all  the  original  words  ; 
others  have  not.  In  all  entire  translations,  ^{XTtn^oo  is 
rendered  dip,  or  an  equivalent.  In  oar  Bible,  unfor- 
tunately, the  word  ^arrri^a},  is  not  translated  ;  and  pedo- 
baptists  have  seized  this  circumstance  to  puzzle  the  ig- 
norant and  sustain  their  sprinkling.  But  suppose  nei- 
ther of  Peters  words  were  translated  at  Acts  ii.  38. 
fisxavorjgaTs,  Repent,  xai.)  and  ^aTtxiaOrjjbJj  be  baptizedj 
and  thousands  of  designing  men  should  rack  their 
brains  for  criticisms  to  prove  that  fisTavosoj,  repent,  nei- 
ther means  to  turn  away  from  sin,  nor  he  sorry  for  it; 
what  would  be  the  result  ?  They  might  dupe  the  ig- 
norant ;  but  would  the  world  be  improved  by  their  la- 
bors ? 

Pedobaptists  treat  ^anxta  and  its  cognates  precisely 


154 

tts  the  Universallsts  do  atwv,  eternal ;  and  the  latter 
can  as  easily  prove  future  punishment  limited,  as  the 
former  that  (9a7rT«tw, baptize,  means  to  sprinkle:  and 
when  pedobaptists  encounter  Universallsts,  they  are 
oblio^ed  to  adopt  correct  principles  of  interpretation,  or 
he  defeated. 


SECTION      VI. 

Direct  Arguni cuts  for  ImmersiGn. 

The  Greeks  have  several  words  which  they  employ 
with  reference  to  the  use  of  water.  PavTi'^o),  from 
p/xtj/fti,  to  sprinkle  ;  yeo).,  and  cK/fw,  pour,  to  pour  out  ; 
ayvitw^  to  purify  ;  xadumtM,  to  cleanse  ;  vinjo),  to  wash 
the  hsiuds,  face  or  feet ;  aovw,  to  bathe  the  body  ;  nlvyM, 
to  wash  clothes  ;  and  ^,a7XTi'co>,  from  ^anTco.  to  dip  or  im- 
merse. In  the  English  Bible,  the  word  5/? rtn/jZe  occurs 
sixty-two  times.  In  31  instances  it  is  a  translation  from 
^aivci);  in  23  instdnces  from  the  compounds  of /ew;  in 
8  instances  from  other  words;  but  in  no  instance  is 
it  from  ^anro)  or  ^a7Tziti».  To  pour,  with  its  derivatives, 
occurs  152  times.  In  94  instances  it  is  translated 
from  /ew  and  its  compounds  ;  and  58  times  from  other 
words  and  phrases,  amounting  to  27  varieties;  but  in 
no  instance  from  Bunroj  or  ^utitiIo).  To  wash  occurs 
139  times;  33  times  it  is  a  translation  of  vmro)  ;  49 
times  lovo) ;  44  times  qaivb)  ;  3  times  yeoi ;  and  5  times 
Punxm  or  fjanii'co},  as  the  effect  of  immersion — as  at 
Mark  vii,  4. 

To  dip.  with  its  derivatives,  occurs  22  times.  Once 
it  is  from  fwXui-u),  slain,  as  when  Joseph's  coat  was  dip- 
ped in  blood— Gen.  xxxvii.  31  ;  the  other  21  times  it 
is  from  ^uttto)  or  punn'Cfx)  ;  L'ut  never  from  quivo),  x^^^ 
V  1,7110),  kovco J  nlvfbi,  or  any  of  their  compounds  or  deriva- 
tives. To  plunge  occurs  but  once,  and  there  it  is 
^amio.     The  Hebrew  woi  d  bra  occurs  in  the  Old  Tes- 


155 

tarnent  17  times.  In  the  Septuagint  it  is  16  times  ren- 
dered ^utttojoi  §aTiTiX,u)^  and  once  (.lolwu)^  to  dye.  Jun- 
ius and  Tremmeliui  translate  it  into  Latin  16  times  by 
tirigo,  immergOj  and  denier  go  ;  and  our  English  ver- 
sion translates  it  16  times  to  dip  or  'plunge^  and  once 
dyed. 

Thus  we  find  that  in  Hebrew,  Greek.  Latin,  and 
English,  the  definite  and  immutable  meaning  of  the 
word  is  to  dip,  to  immerse^  to  plunge. 

Now  if  to  baptize  is  simply  to  purify  or  cleanse,  as 
Mr.  Sawyer  says,  p.  1,  then  ayn'ru},  to  purify^  or 
xaOugt'^bj,  to  cleanse,  would  have  been  the  verb  used. 
If  sprinkling  was  the  action,  then  qavxi'^^oj  would  have 
been  used.  If  pouring  were  the  action  commanded, 
then  /scj  would  have  been  the  word,  and  to  sprinkle 
water  on  the  feet,  or  pour  it  in  the  mouih,  would  have 
been  equally  valid  baptism.  If  to  wash  the  clothes 
were  the  actioii,  then  ttAww  would  be  the  word.  If 
washing  the  hands, /«ce  or  feet  were  the  action  of  bap- 
tism, then  viTiTbi  v/ould  be  the  word.  If  bathing  the 
body,  by  applying  the  water  to  wash  or  cleanse  had 
been  the  action  commanded,  then  lovo)  would  have 
bee'n  the  word.  But  as  dipping  or  immersing  is  the 
action  which  God  commanded,  ^amit^o)  is  used  in  eve- 
ry instance  where  the  action  of  baptism  is  spoken  of; 
Qnd  I  ask  proof  to  the  contrary. 

Mr.  Sawyer  says,  p,  2,  ••  ^uuti'^q),  baptize,  is  a  fre~ 
quejitative  verb,  derived  from  §um(a,  and  according  to 
its  derivative  form  denotes  frequency  or  repetition  of 
the  action  signified."  We  reply,  there  are  about  19,000 
verbs  in  the  Greek  language,  and  about  3,400  of  these 
end  in  rw  ;  yet  probably  not  a  dozen  frequentatives 
can  be  found  in  the  whole.  Therefore  if  this  verb 
has  a  frequentative  meaning,  it  is  not  derived  from  th* 
law  of  formation ;  and  if  derived,  from  special  usage, 
it  is  of  modern  invention.  Would  the  limits  of  this 
work  allow  it,  we  could  quote  hundreds  of  emineat 


156 

scholars,  to  prove  that  repeated  baptisms  are  not  re- 
quired by  the  force  of  the  word.  Tertuhan  says, — 
*'  Thence  we  are  thrice  immersed,  [  ter  mei^gitamur,] 
fulfilUng  somewhat  more  [amplius  aliquid  responden- 
tes]  than  the  Lord  has  decreed  in  the  gospel." — Ter- 
tulian  corona  Militis,  chapt.  3. 

And  as  Mr.  Sawyer  allows  ^ann'Qu)  to  be  the  word 
employed,  if  he  could  prove  it  to  be  a  frequentative, 
he  would  only  show  that  baptism,  whatever  the  actiojQ 
iSf  should  be  repeated. 

Having  clearly  shown  that  the  derivatives  of  ^amoii 
are  the  only  words  used  in  the  Bible  to  denote  baptism, 
and  that  baptism  is  one  unchangeable  action  :  to  de- 
termine the  meaning  of  ^unno,  fanTi'Qcx).  6unTi,ciua,^amiS- 

fmgj  (fee,  we  introduce  the  following  testimony : 
I. — Lexicons. 

Mr.  Sawyer  says,  p.  2,  "  The  mode  of  baptism  i« 
not  to  be  determined  by  a  hasty  reference  to  Greek 
lexicons,  or  the  testimony  of  professed  Greek  scholars 
and  Professors.  It  requires  an  investigation  of  the  ori- 
ginal words  applied  to  denote  this  rite,  in  the  writings 
where  they  occur.  By  this  means  we  ascend  be- 
yond THE  LEXICONS,  and  are  enabled  to  judge  for 
ourselves."  When  Mr.  S.  says  he  ascends  beyond  the 
lexicons,  he  must  mean  that  he  ascends  beyond  the 
authors  of  the  lexicons.  It  is  possible,  however,  that 
some  of  these  Greek  authors  and  Professors^  who 
were  the  ablest  of  native  Greek  scholars,  would  scarce- 
ly be  willing  to  learn  the  meaning  of  Greek  verbs  at 
Mr.  Sawyer's  feet.  The  fact  that  pedobaptist  lexicons 
render  ^anTc'ro  inunerse,  is  an  evidence  that  popular 
literature  lives  above  sectarian  prejudices. 

"We  appeal  to  the  vocabulary  and  lexicon  for  the 
meaning  of  the  term.  We  have  the  literal  meaning 
of  it  fixed  by  all  Greece  ;  and  if  any  other  baptism 
had  been  intended  by  our  Lord,  the  intentional  depar- 
ture from  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word  would 
have  been  frankly  and  honestly  stated." 

Dr.  W.  C.  Brownlee  tgainat CluakcWfc 


157 

'If  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  immerse,  then  im- 
mersion and  nothing  else  will  do  ;  for  it  would  be  folly 
fcr  me  to  attempt  to  immerse  a  man  by  sprinkling  him.' 

Edward  Beecher,  President  of  Jacksonville  College. 

We  shall  now  see  why  Mr.  Sawyer  feared  the  lexi- 
cons. 

^panTitfa,  properly  immergo  ac  inlingo  in  aquam 
mergo ;    to  immerse,  to  dip,  to  plunge  into  water.' 

Schleusner's  Le», 

^  ^anxi^Q),  in  its  primary  and  radical  sense ;  I  cover 
with  water.  It  is  used  to  denote,  1st,  I  plunge  or  sink 
completely  under  water.'    Ewing'sLex. 

^^otTTTt^w,  plunge,  to  plunge  in  water,  to  dip.' 

John  Jones'  L«m. 

'  fianii-Qoi,  mergo,  immergo.'    g.  v^^tnck's  Lex. 

*  Baptisirum,  a  bath  into  which  persons  are  plung- 

^"*       A.  Adams' Lex. 

*  Baptisma  and  baptismus,  ^aTtro)^  tlife  tSUffe/ 

A.  Buchener'sLcj:. 

'Baptism  in  theology  is  formed  from  the  Greek 

^a7tTcl;a),   I  dip,  I  plunge.'      Dr.  Reese's  cyclopedia. 

*  Baptism,  formed  of  §amiCfi),  of  ^amm ;  I  dip,  or 
plunge.  In  primitive  times  the  ceremony  was  perform- 
ed by  immersion.'      e.  Chalmer's  cyclopedia. 

^§anut,<a,  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse  in  water.' 

J.  Parkhurst's  Lex. 

*  Baptism,  ^amiguoq,  to  dip  or  immerse.' 

Calmet's  Diat 

*/?a7rTt^Q>;m.ergo,  immergo.'  b.  nedrici  Lex. 

*  Mergo,  to  dip,   plunge.'      Cole'3  Latin  Diet. 

*  Immergo,  to  plunge,  or  dip  over  head  and  ears.' 

W.  Young's  English  and  Latin  Diet. 

<  Mergo,  to  d ip,  to  sink.'    ^^^^^,^  ^^^-.^  Diet. 

*^a7tTi^(»)^  proprie  saepius  intingo  submerge  in  aquam, 

immergo.       q  q  Bretschneider'sLex. 

*  Intingo,  to  dip  in,  to  steep  in,  or  color.' 

W  Young's  English  and  Latin  Diet, 

'  Mergo,  I  dip,  immergo,  I  dip  in,  plunge  over  head.* 

C.  Cellario,  Latin  Diet, 
•BaptizO,  to  dip  all  over.'    w.  Young's  Latin  and  English^DwK. 

«^«7rr*$a>,  to  dip,  immerse,  submerge,  sink.' 

Pickering's  Lmi, 

14 


158 

^Baptism,   that   is   dipping,   immersing,   from    tbs 

dreek  ^ann'ra}.^    American  Encyclopedia. 

^^anwj,  to  dip,  to  plunge  into  water;  §amitfi),  to  !m- 

merse.      j  Donegan's  Lex. 

'  Baptism,  in  the  apostolic  age,  was  performed  by 

immersion.      Edinburgh  Encyclopedia. 

^ ^anii'roj,  to  dip,  to  piiuige  into;  as  what  for  the 
sake  of  dyeing  or  washing  we  plunge  into  wate^'^ 

Scapul*  ^ej^ 
'|9a;Tn.>,  mergO,   laVO.'      SchrevellusLex. 

'^aTTu^w,  immergo,  mergo,  intingo.' 

BudoeiisandConstanline'a    Le» 

'^ttTrrt^w,  immergo  ;  j^a^rrtc/./o;,  inimersio.' 

Hadrian  Junius  Lex. 

^  ^amix).  to  dip  in,  to  immerse  ;  ^ann'Qoj,  to  submerg-e, 

Mnk.      E.Robinson's  Lex. 

^  ^anToi^  to  dip,  plunge,  immerse  ;  ^aTin^b),  to  immerse, 

submerge,  sink.'    g.  Greenfield's  Lcx. 

^ ^anzi'Qw  has  but  one  signification  ;  it  signifies  lite- 
rally and  invariably  to  plunge.'  stourdzaLex. 

These  and  hundreds  more  must  come  to  Mr.  Saw- 
yer, and  learn  the  meaning  oi  ^crcji'QM  ]  for  he  has  as- 
oended  far  beyond  them^  and  has  found  out  that  bap- 
tize means  to  sprinkle. 

11. — Classical  use  of  §amM. 

"As  when  a  smith  to  harden  an  iron  hatchet  or 
pole-ax,  BoiTnEi,  [dips)  it  in  cold  water.' 

Hornet's  Odissey,  book  9,  line  392i. 

'An  Egyptian  considers  the  touch  of  a  swine  so 
polluting,  that  if  he  com.es  in  contact  with  one  he 
goes  immediately  to  the  river  and  B^aipe,  ['plunges) 
himself  with  his  clothes.'  Herodotus,  2, 47 

'  Let  the  food  be  cakes  e^  ^amo^evoi  [dipped)  hot  ta 

sour   wine.      Hippocrates  de  Vict.  rat.  page  104 

'  The  bucket  must   first   be  §a:r\pat^  dipped^  th«a 

drawn  up.         AristoMle  Quaest  MccIi.  chapl.  29. 

I  could  quote  thousands  who  thus  us©  the  w«r«L 


159 

ill. — Classic  use  of  ^annl^cj. 
^a7tTtt,(o  baptize,  as  used  by  the  classic  Greek  wri- 
ters, signifies  to  dip,  to  immerse  in  a  liquid. 

L.  A.  Sawyer's  CraxicAi,  Dissertation,  p.  3. 

*  The  yonno-  man  was  sent  to  Jericho,  and  there  ae- 
eording  to  his  (Herod^s)  order,  ^anTitousvog  being  dip- 
ped in  a  pool  till  became  to  his  end.' 

Joseplius'  war,  book  1,  chapt.  22,  sec.  3. 

*  Killing  some  on  the  land  and  ^anii'copTojy  plunging 
others  in  the  Lake,     neiiodorus'  Ethiopia,  lib.  i,  chapt.  so,  p.  55. 

'For  it  does  not  befall  the  things  which  can  not 
swim  fluTiTCsgdai,  to  be  immersed  ;  but  they  swim  oa 
the  su  rllice  like  wood.'     ^,,^^^,^  ^eog ,  nb.  9,  p.  421. 

'  Such  a  storm  suddenly  pervaded  all  the  country, 
that  the  ships  that  were  in  the  Tiber  were  immersed 

or  sunk  tu  ttoIoiu  svtijj  Ti,^eo  idv  ^a7iTigdi]i'ai.^ 

Dion  Cassius,  vol.  1,  p.  148. 

Great  effort  is  made  by  pedobaptists  to  show  that 
faTtn';ui  means  sometliing  else  beside  immerse.  But  if 
this  could  be  done,  what  would  be  gained.  Our  Eng- 
lish word  DIP,  has  about  twenty  different  meanings, 
yet  when  the  word  is  used  in  reference  to  baptism, 
both  baptists  and  pedobaptists  fix  a  definite  meaning 
to  it.  But  the  word  ^aTtnt^ia  baptize^  has  but  on© 
meaning  ;  hence  not  only  use,  but  the  etymology  of 
the  word  compel  us  to  render  it  immerse  and  nothing 
else. 

ly. — The  Sacred  use  of  ^anro}. 

farvTco  bapto,  as  used  in  the  septuagint,  is  generally 
»  translation  of  the  Hebrew  word  Vit:  taval,  and  sig- 
nifies to  dip,  to  immerse.' 

L.  A.  Sawyer's  Critical  Dissertation,  p.  3. 

Luke.  xvi.  24  ;  '  Send  Lazarus  that  he  may  ^ay^ 
dip  the  tip  of  his  finger.' 

John  xiii.  20  :  'Fie  it  is  to  whom  I  will  give  the 
sop  when  I  have  (?«(//«?  dipped  it.' 

Matt.  xxvi.  23  ;  '  He  that  ef^^aipas  dippeth  his  hand 
with  me  in  the  dish.' 


160 

Rev.  xix.  13  :  *  clothed  with  a  vesture  §e^a(i6v^w 
dipped  in  blood.' 

Thus  we  find  ^ajiia)  rendered  dip  in  every  instance 
ia  the  New  Testament. 

V. — The  Sacred  use  of  ^amt^o). 
As  this  word  is  not  translated   in  the  New  Testar 
ment,  we  will  let  our  pedobaptist  bretheren  say  what 
it  means.      O^^anTi'Qat  Mr.  Sawyer  says,  '  2  Kings  v.  14 
where  it  is  a  translation  of  V-t:  taval,  to  dip.'' 

Critical  Dissertation,  p.  4. 

^  It  is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  one  is  wash- 
ed in  a  pool,  river,  fountain,  lake  or  bath,  nor  is  there 
any  diiference  between  those  whom  John  immersed 
(tinxit)  in  the  Jordon,  or  Peter  in  the  Tiber. 

Tertulian  Militis,  eect.4 

^  You  were  asked,  dost  thou  believe  in  God  Al- 
Almighty?  thou   saidst,    I   believe;    and   thus    thou 

(mersisti)  wast   immersed.'        AmbroseDegacr.lib.  2,chapt.7. 

'The  word  ^artTt'rco,  both  in  sacred  authors  and 
in  classical,  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse.' 

Campbell's  4  Gosjiels,  note  on  Matt.  iii.  IL 
'  TO  ^ajiTigjua  ev  jqiql  aaTudv^Egt  T6?.siTut  baptism    is  pCT- 

formed  by  three  immersions.'  Theophyiact'scomm.  onMarka 
'The  Apostolic  church  baptized  only  by  immersion.' 

Bretsclmeider's  Theol.  Vol.  2,  p.  684. 

'It  can  not  be  denied  that  the  nati\re  signification  of 
the  word   ^annev  and  ^anxitsiv  is  to  plunge,  to  dip.' 

Witsius'  Econ.  of  Cov.,  Lib.  4,  chapt.  16,  Sect.  13. 

'  The  Greek  church  in  all  its  branches,   does   still 

use  immersion.         y)v.  Wall's  hijt.  of  infant  bapt.,  vol.  2.  p.  376. 

'^aTTTw  is  a  perfect  immersion;  ^amitoj  is  to  sink 
aearly  to  the  bottom  in  water.      Kaiser  Bib.  Theoi  voi.2,p  lei. 

'Matt.  iii.  6,  A  great  part  of  these  who  went  out  to 
hear  John,  were  baptized,  that  is  dipped  in  Jordan.' 

Pool's  AnnoiatioD* 

'Baptism  was  originally  by  immersion.' 

Dr.  Neander's  ch.  hist,  vol  1.  part  2,  p.  361> 

'Trine  immersion  represents  the  three  days  burial 

M  OnriSt.         Leo,  Bishop  ofRome.Decret  9. 

'That  the  Apostles  immersed  whom  they  baptized, 


161 

there  is  no  doubt ;  and  that  the  ancient  church  fol- 
lowed their  example  is  very  clearly  evinced  by  innu- 
merable testimonies  of  the  Fathers. 

G.  I  Vossius  De  bapt.  1  sect,  ft 

*I  admit  that  the  original  signification  oi  §amilot  '\s 

Immersion.'        p^.  janeways  letters  oa  bapt. 

'Acts  viii.  38,  probably  he  pkmged  himself  under 
(he  water,  as  this  was  the  plan  generally  followed  by 

the  Jews.      Dr.  a.  Clark's  comment. 

'  The  person,  in  great  simplicity  is  let  down  into  tb© 
water,  and  with  a  few  words  said  is  dipped.' 

Tertulian  De  Baptismo,  chap.  1% 

*  The  word  ^amiQu}  signifies  to  dye  by  dipping.' 

Beza  on  Matthew  iii.  11, 

'  The  act  of  baptizing  is  the  immersion  of  believers 
in  water;  this  expresses  the  force  of  the  word:  thui 
also  it  was  performed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.' 

Viiringa's  Theol.  Aphoris.  88t 

'The  original  and  naturcil  signification  of  the  word 
^artTi'Qoj,  imports  to  dip,  to  plunge.' 

Ridgley's  Body  of  Divinity. 

*The  Greeks  defend  immersion  as  is  manifest,  and 
has  been  frequently  observed  by  learned  men.' 

Biifldeus  Theol  Do^m.  lib.  5,  chap.  1,  see.  & 

'In  the  primitive  church  baptism  was  a  total  im- 
mersion, or  burial  as  it  were.' 

Bechmann's  Theol.  p.  632,  A.  D.  1696. 

'Howbeit  the  very  word  of  baptizing  signifieth  to 
dip,   and  it  is  certain  that  the  manner  of  dipping  was 

used  of   the  old  church.'    Calvin'sIn..t.p.650,London,A.D.  leii. 

'Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized,  by  which 
word  it  is  certain  immersion  is  sio^nified.' 

Beza's  Epist.  2  Anotation  on  Mark  vii.  4. 

'  It  is  certain  that  both  John  the  baptist  and  Jesus 
Christ  practiced  immersion,  whose  example  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  ancient  church,  as  Vossius  has  shown  by 
producing  many  testimonies  from  the  Greek  and  Latin 

writers,      witslus'  Econ.  of  Gov.  lib.  4,  chap.  16,  sec.  13. 
^  ^anil'QOi,  to  dip.      Encyclopedia  Biitanica. 

*  famt^caj  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse.' 

A.  Rees'  Encyelopadta. 

14* 


162 

^This  was  the  ancient  rite  of  baptizing,  that  they 
should  be  immersed  in  water,  which  even  the  word 
^nitt^BLv  sufficiently  declares.' 

I.  Causabon  in  Wbitaker'sTesEament,  A.  D.  1633. 

'Baptism  by  immersion  was  undoubtedly  the  apos- 

tOUC    practice.      Bowers'  Hist,  of  Ihe  Popes,  vol.  2.  p.  110. 

'Matt.  iii.  1,    izmtv }zUlmm 3^^\nnmBt^tt 

Gauffer.)  in  those  days  came  John  the  dipper.' 


'The  persons  to  be  baptized,  after  they  had  repeated 
the  creed,  (fee.  were  immersed  under  water,  and  received 
into  Christ's  kingdom  by  a  solemn  invocation  of  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  express 
command  of  our  blessed  Lord.' 

Mosheim's  Churcli  Hist.  cent.  2,  part  2,  sec.  13, 

'Being  thrice  overwhelmed  in  the  water  and  again 
raised  from  it,  we  imitate  tlie  burial   and  resurrection 

01    Christ.      Gregory  NyssenOrat.  cat.  35. 

'The  Greek  word  j^MTiTt'^oj signifies  im-mergo^  that  is 
to  plunge,  and  dip  in,  and  that  v/as  the  proper  use  of 
water  baptism  amongthe  Jews,  and  also  by  John  and 
the  primitive  christians.'  R.Barkiey's  Apoi.p.44o. 

'The  custom  of  ancient  churches  was  not  to  sprin- 
kle, but  immersion,  in  pursuance  to  the  sense  of  the 
word  ^a7TTi';oj^  in  the  command  and   example  of  ouf 

Saviour,      d^.  i_  Taylor's  Bib.  Infant  Bapt.  p.  603. 

'The  name  baptism  is  a  Greek  word  and  may  be 
termed  a  dipping  :  as  when  we  dip  something  in  water 
that  it  may  be  v/holly  covered.' 

M.  Luther's  Latin  Essay  on  Bapt.  tome  1,  fol,71. 

'The  Germans  learned  effusion,  ond  afterwards 
changed  it  further  from  the  primitive  mode  of  immer- 
sion, into  mere  sprinkling.'  ^  ^r.  waii's  Defence,  p.  403. 

'The  original  mode  of  adminstering  Christian  bap- 
tism, was  the  same  that  had  obtained  among  the  Jews 
in  the  baptizing  of  proselytes  ;  that  is,  by  washing  or 
immersing  the  whole  body  in  water.' 

B.  Becbury,  bishop  of  Cenu.  Dieceitrs*  p.  ML 


163 

*  We  represent  our  Lord's  sufferings  and  ascensfou 
by  baptism  in  a  pool.'  j^,^;^  M^^.^y,.^  q^, ,io  13. 7. 

'By   three   immersioas  we  represent  the  death   of 

Christ.  Basil  the  Grert,  De  Spintu  Sancto  19. 

'  Acts  ii,  33  :  And  be  bjiptized  ;  that  is,  let  every 
one  of  you,  struck  witli  a  sorrow  for  your  sins,  be 
plunged  in  the  water ;  because  that  sacred  immersion 
has  been  established  by  Clirist.' 

C.  M  Da  Veil's  Latin  Works,  Claude's  transIatJoik 

*  The  FiUgUsh  Ciiurch  practiced  immersion  down 
to  the  beo^inning-  of  the  17th  century,  when  a  change 
Co  the  method  of  sprinkling  gradually  took  pkice,  and 
in  conlirmation  of  this,  see  the  first  Litur2:y  published 
in  1547,  which  enjoins  trine  immersion.' 

I.  Fiover's  Essay  on  banlism,  j).  50, 

'Feb.  Saturday  2lst,  1736,  Mary  Welch  ;!ged  elev- 
en days,  was  baptized  accordin^g;  to  the  custom  of  the 
first  church  and  the  rule  of  the  churc!)  of  Ei.'g'jmd,  by 
immersion.  ^Yeduesday  May  5th,  173G,  J  was  asked 
to  baptize  a  child  of  Mr.  Parker,  second  balif  ofSavari^ 
nah.  But  Mrs.  Parker  said,  neither  me  nor  Mr.  Pai- 
ker  will  consent  to  its  beins^  dipped.  I  answerd,  if 
you  will  certify  that  the  child  is  weak  it  will  suffice, 
(the  Rubric  says.)  to  pour  water  on  it.  She  replied, 
nay,  the  child  is  not  weak;  but  I  am  resolved  that 
it  shall  not  be  dipped.  So  I  went  home,  and  the 
child  was  baptized  by  anot'ier  percoii.' 

J.  Wes.iley's  Joiu-nal  in  'uis  vv'odis,  Vol.  1,  pp.  25— 30. 

'Immersion  Vv^as  practiced  by  the  clvtirch  for  1000 
years,  except  in  cases  of  daiiirerous  iiiuess.' 

Bishop  Smiih's  Sein^.on,  Lexin^jton,  Z?[entiick:y,  in  1S8 

*  We  no  where  read  in  Scripture  of  any  ones  being 
baptized  but  by  immersion;  and  from  acts  of  councils 
and  ancient  Rituals,  several  authors  have  proved  that 
this  manner  of  immersion  continued  as  much  a;:  possi- 
ble to  be  used  for  1300  years  after  Christ.' 

Stachhoufce' hist,  ofisible,  Booi:  8,  Chapt  1 

*  We  follow  the  example  of  the  Apostles,  who  ioi' 
iHcrsed  the  candidate  under  water.' 

Critopulas  Confetsloa  of  Faith,  efaftp&  7. 


164 

^  In  the  Greek  Church,  baptism  is  performed  by 

iitimersioD,  and  it  is  repeated  three  times. The 

Greeks  so  firmly  believe  that  sprinkling  of  water  on 
the  head  among  us  is  not  sufficient  for  baptism,  that 
they  rehaptize  the  Latins  who  embrace  their  commun- 

ion.  Tourneforts  Voyages,  Vol.  1,  p.  132. 

'■  Baptism  is  administered  among  the  Armenians  by 

immersion .         Toumefort's  Voyage  au  Levant,  Vol.  3,  p.  247. 

'Baptism  relates  to  the  death  of  Christ;  the  water 
answers  to  the  grave,  the  immersion  represents  our 
dying  with  him,  the  emersion  our  rising  with  him.' 

Apostolic  constitutions,  Lib.  3,  Chapt.  17. 

'  Baptism  is  an  entire  action,  to  wit,  a  dipping  ;  and 
the  pronouncing  of  these  words,  I  baptize  thee  in  the 

name  of  the  Father  &C.*        g^^^^n  Conf  of  raitl.,  by  Melanc  in  1551. 

'All  the  Christians  in  Asia,  all  in  Africa,  and  about 
one  third  part  of  Europe  immerse.' 

Dr.  Wall's  hist,  of  Bapt.  Part  2,  Chapt.  9,  p.  477. 

'I  have  heard  a  disputant  of  this  stamp,  in  defiance 
of  etymology  and  use,  maintain  that  the  word  ren- 
dered baptize  means  more  properly  to  sprinkle  than  to 
plunge.  One  who  argues  in  this  manner  never  fails, 
with  persons  of  knowledge,  to  betray  the  cause  they 
would  defend  ;  and  though  with  respect  to  the  vulgar, 
bold  assertions  succeed  as  well  as  arguments,  yet  can- 
did minds  will  disdain  to  take  the  help  of  a  falsehood 
even  in  support  of  truth.' 

Br.  Campbell's  Lecture  on  Pnlpit  Eloquence,  p.  488. 

'  Baptising  in  ancient  times  was  by  immersion  ;  thig 
is  so  plain  and  clear,  from  an  infinite  number  of  pas- 
sages, thai  one  can  not  but  pity  the  v/eak  endeavors  of 
«uch  pedobaptists  as  would  maintain  the  negative  of  it.' 

Dr.  Vvairs  Zlislory  of  Baptism,  vol,  2,  p.  351. 

'  No  ho7iest  man  who  understands  the  Greek  lan- 
guage can  deny  the  word  {^ann'Qo))  to  signify  to  dip.' 

Dr.  Owen's  Po5-Jhuaioiis  Works,  p.  &S1. 

'The  disciples  of  our  Lord  could  understand  his 
tommand  in  no  other  manner  than  as  enjoining  ira- 
mersion,  for  the  baptism  of  John,  to  which  Jesus  him- 


165 

self  submitted,  and  also  the  earlier  baptism  of  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus,  were  performed  by  dipping  the  subjett 
into  cold  water,  as  is  evident  from  Matt.  iii.  6  :  e^ocTrr^ 
lovTo  ev  TO)  logdavi],  were  baptized  in  Jordan.  Matt.  iii.  16^. 

fsgov;  avB^i]  evdug  ano  tov  vduio;,  JesUS  ascended  OUt  of 
the  water.'    sjorrs' Bib.  TheoL 


SECTION     VII. 


Baptism  a  burial. 

That  baptism  is  explained  as  a  burial  and  planting 
by  God  himself,  is  fatal  to  the  sprinkling  scheme  ;  for 
how  can  a  man  be  bnried  by  putting  a  little  water  oa 
his  face.  The  Saviour  foreseeing  that  some  men  would 
fall  into  this  error,  determined  to  leave  them  without 
excuse,  therefore  Paul  was  inspired  to  make  two  faithful 
comments  on  ^anit'^bi  and  its  derivatives.  That  Rom. 
vi.  3 — 5,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  are  such  inspired  explanations, 
is  conceded  by  all  intelligent  pedobapizots,  of  v/hich 
the  following  are  specimens: — ^:sjvOc(nTO},  to  be  buried 
as  another  has  been  buried,  Rom.  vi.  4,  2:vvsiu(pri^sv  ow 

avT(x)  dia  TOV  ^anTigijaios  si;  tov  Ouvutov  aviov.       Col.    ii.    12, 

Swezacpsvieo  aviu)  ev  to*  ^anTiguazi,.  He  here  compares  th« 
baptism  of  Christians,  in  which  they  were  probably 
immersed  in  water ^  to  the  burial  of  Jesus,  and  as  Jesus 
rose  from  the  grave  to  a  new  and  more  exalted  state  of 
existence  than    he  exhibited  on  earth,   so  their  rising 

from  the   water,'  &C.    e.  Robinson's  Lex.  :^vvOo:uTixU 

*  Anciently  those  who  were  baptized,  were  immersed 
and  buried  in  water  to  represent  their  death  to  sin,  and 
then  did  rise  up  out  of  the  water,  to  signify  their  en- 
trance upon  a  new  life,  and  to  these  customs  the  apos- 
tle alludes,  Roni.  vi.  % — 6.' 

Archbishop  TillotBon'a  Works,  vol,  I,  f,  IT8. 


166 

'The  plunging-  into  water  sis:nifieth  that  we  die  and 
are  hurled  with  Christ  as  concerning  the  old  life  of  sin.' 

Wm.  T>rnJairs  Obedience  of  a  Christian  Man,  p.  143. 

*It  seems  the  part  of  candor  to  coniess  that  here  is 
an  allusion  to  the  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion,^ 

Dr.  Dfidfiridge's  Exposition,  Ronjans  vi.  3—4. 

^Immersion  was  religiously  observed  by  all  Christians 
for  thirteen  cenruries,  and  was  changed  into  sprinkling 
without  any  authority  from  the  author  of  this  institu- 
tion.   It  vrere  to  be  wished  that  this  custom  were  again 

in  general   use.    Dr.  Vv'hiiliy's  comment,  on  Romans,  vi.  4. 

'Rom.  vi.  4.  There  is  li^re  plamiy  a  reference  to 
tlie  ancient  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  and  1  agree 
•with  Koppe  and  Rosen muller  tliat  there  is  reason  to 
reorret  it  should  have  been  abandoned  by  most  christian 

enUrctlCS.      Kioomfield's  Critical  Digest. 

*In  baptism,  by  a  kind  of  analogy  or  resemblance, 
while  our  bodies  are  under  the  water  we  may  be  said 
to  be  buried  with  l]im.' 

fiishop  Kicliolson's  E.tposition  of  Cburcb  Catechism,  p.  174 

^  That  baptism  was  performed  not  by  sprinkling  but 
by  immersion  is  evident  not  only  from  the  nature  of 
the  wordj  but  from  Rom.  vi.  4.' 

Prof.  Fritsche's  Comment,  on  Matthew  lii.  & 


ECTION      VIII 


The  Savlor^s  Baptism  an   Example  for  Believers* 

'If  the  baptism  of  Jesus  Christ  was  intended  as  an 
examph  for  Christians  you  ought  to  follow  it.' 

Win.  T.  Iliiniilton's  Anabapli^m  Di.«proved,  p.  10. 

'Baptism  was  instituted  aiid  consecrated  by  God, 
and  the  first  that  baptized  was  JoIju  who  dipped  Christ 
in  the  water  in  Jordan.' 

Hel»e:ia  Corif.  Faith,  written  by  Eiicer,  A.  D.  153G:  repub  Zurich,  A.  D.  1566. 

'Jesus  submitted  to  be  baptized,  that  is  buried  under 
the  water,  by  John,  and  to  be  raised  out  of  it  again,  as 
an  emblem  of  his  future  death  and  resurrection.' 

Mackniglit's  Apostolic  Epietles,  note  on  Rom.  vi.  4» 


167 

*Our  Lord  would  be  baptized  that  he  might  coneiV 
late  authority  to  the  baptism  of  John,  that  by  his  es^ 
ample  he  might  commend  and  sanctify  our  baptism.' 

Wirsiut. 

'Matt.  iii.  15,  Thus  it  becometti  iis,  &c.  We  never 
find  that  Jesus  spake  of  himself  in  the  'plural  nnmberj 
and  we  must  therefore  allow  he  meant  John  also,  and 
all  God's  servants.  It  became  Christ,  our  surely  and 
example,  perfectly  to  fulfil  all  righteousness  :  and  it 
becometh  us  to  walk  in  God's  commandments  without 

exception,      ^j..  Scott's  comment. 

Some  persons  think  they  must  v/ait  a  v/hile  after  they 
are  converted,  to  see  if  they  can  live  like  a  Christian, 
before  they  are  baptized'.  But  this  is  evidently  v/rong  ; 
for  how  can  we  live  like  a  Christian  in  disobedienca. 
In  the  Savior's  commands  there  is  no  duty  enjoined 
between  believing  and  being  baptized  :  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 
'Teacli  all  nations,  baptizing  then.].'  Mark  xvi.  16, 
'He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized.'  According^ly  ia 
the  practice  of  the  apostles  there  are  cxjiiiples  of  "pei^ 
sons  being  baptized  the  same  hour  of  tlie  night  in 
which  they  believed  ;  and  there  is  no  example  of  any 
waiting  as  long  as  three  days,  excepting  Paul,  Acts  ix. 
8 — 19:  verse  9,  'And  he  was  three  d:iys  without 
sight;  and  neither  did  eat  nor  drink;'  yet  Ananias  se- 
verely rebuked  him  for  delaying  his  baptism  so  long: 
Acts  xxii.  16,  'Now  v/hy  tarriest  thou,  arise  and  be, 
baptized  and  wash  away  thy  sins.'  Acts  ix.  18 — 19, 
*And  immediati^ly  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had 
been  scales,  and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  aros« 
and  was  baptized,  and  when  he  had  received  meat  he 
vas  strengthened.'  Paul's  being  blind  and  so  ill  as 
not  to  take  any  food,  would  appear  like  an  apology  for 
his  delaying  baptism ;  yet  the  Holy  Spirit  moved 
Ananias  to  make  no  allowance,  but  to  rebuke  his  delay  : 
'  Now  why  tarriest  thou.''  In  all  other  instances  where 
the  ©rdinancc  is  mentioned  w»  find  that  the  convert 


168 

was  baptized  the  same  day  that  he  believed  :  Acts  it 
S8,  '  Repent  and  be  baptized/  Acts  ii.  41,  '  Then  they 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized,  and  the 
same  day  there  were  added  about  three  thousand 
aouls.'  Acts  viii.  35 — 38,  'The  Eunuch  was  baptized 
immediately.'  Acts  xvi.  15,  'Lydia  did  not  delay.' — 
Acts  xvi.  33,  '  The  jailor  was  baptized  the  same  houi 
of  the  night.'  Acts  xviii.  8,  'Many  of  the  Gorii> 
thians  hearing,  believed  and  were  baptized.'  Hence 
^is  joining  a  six  month  class  paper,  or  being  propounded 
for  one,  two,  or  three  months,  is  without  any  Bible 
precept  or  example,  and  is  wholly  opposed  to  the  scrip- 
tares.  It  should  be  rem.embered  that  we  are  account 
able  for  sins  of  omission  as  well  as  commission  :  Matk 
V.  19,  '  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  break  one  of  these 
least  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall 
be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  but 
wiioever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be 
ealled  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 

1st  John  ii.  6,  'He  that  saith  he  abideth  in  him 
<mght  himself  also  so  to  walk,  even  as  he  walked.' — 
John  xiv.  15,  '  If  ye  love  me  keep  my  commandments.' 
Luke  vi.  46,  '  Why  call  ye  me,  Lord,  Lord,  and  do 
not  the  things  which  I  say.'  2  John  6,  '  This  ia 
love,  that  ye  walk  after  his  commandments.'  Luko 
riv.  33,  '  Whosoever  he  be  of  you  that  forsaketh  not 
ell  that  he  hath,  he  can  not  be  my  disciple.'  Matt.  xix. 
89,  'And  every  one  that  hath  forsaken  houses,  o» 
brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father,  or  mother,  or  wife,  oj 
children,  or  lands,  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receiy* 
an  hundredfold,  and  shall  inherit  everlasting  life.' — 
Mark  viii.  34,  '  Whosoever  will  come  after  me,  let  htto, 
€eny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  me.' 
Luke  xiv.  27,  '  And  whosoever  doth  not  bear  his  crow, 
and  come  after  me^  can  not  be  my  disciple.' 


169 

8ECTI0W      IX. 

Baptism  a  Saving  Ordinance. 

It  has  been  said  that  Baptists  esteem  immersion  a 
saving  ordinance.  We  reply,  no  ordinance  saves.— 
Jesus  Christ  alone  saves,  by  grace,  through  faith  ;  and 
the  Baptists  are  so  far  from  believing  this  ordinance 
iaving,  that  none  are  admitted  to  it  but  those  who  give 
satisfactory  evidence  of  piety.  But  the  following  ex- 
tracts will  show  what  efficacy  pedobaptists  give  to 
sprinkling : 

'Whoever  denies  that  infants  by  Christian  baptism 
are  delivered  from  perdition^  and  brought  to  eternal 
salvatioUj  let  him  be  anathema.^ 

Council  of  Carthage,  Wall's  Hist.  Bapt.  part  1,  p.  957. 

^If  any  one  shall  say  that  baptism  is  not  necessary 
to  salvation,  let  him  be  anathema.'' 

Council  Tiiddent  Session  7,  Caan.6. 

*  Christ  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  man,  nor  any 
man  with  Christ,  till  he  is  baptized  with  water.  Ail 
power  in  heaven  and  earth  is  in  baptism.  He  that  is 
not  baptized  has  no  interest  in  Father,  Son,  nor  Spirit. 
He  who  is  baptized  is  as  white  and  clean  from  sin  as 

God  can  make  him.      Lewelyn's  Treatise  on  Bapt.  pp.  5,  H,  23. 

'In  baptism  we  are  regenerated,  justified  and  sacc- 
tified  while  yet  infants.' 

Faitii  of  the  Church  of  England,  New-York  Evangelist,  Sept.  8,  VSSi. 

'From  this  it  follows  of  course,  agreeably  to  the 
terms  of  that  covenant,  (the  covenant  of  grace,)  that 
infants  are  entitled  to  baptism;  and  that  the  blessiftg* 
^  that  covenant  are  forfeited  by  a  neglect  to  practice 

mtant  baptlSfll.     l  a.  sawyer's  Critical  Dissbrtation,  p.  19. 

'By baptism,  we,  who  are  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath,  are  made  the  children  of  God.' 

John  Wesley's  Works,  vol.  6,  p.  14. 

'It  was  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  Paschal 
hsmh  oa  the  door  posts  of  their  houses  which  preserved 

1.G 


170 

the  Israelites  from  the  destroying  angel.     So  baptism 
when  truly  received  saves  from  everlasting  ruin/ 

Brtn.Mag.  (preabjterian)  Hartford,  June  1836,  p.  647.  See,  also,  Fresbjteiia* 
€V>nf.  Faith,  pp.  Ill,  112,  and  Episcopal  Book  of  Commua  Prajer,  under  Pvblic 
~'~^nai  of  lafanis  and  tbe  Catechism. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE   LORD»S    SUPPER. 

The  word  communioa  is  used  in  connection  with 
tlie  Lord's  Supper  but  in  one  instance :  1  Cor.  x.  16, 
*  The  cup  of  blessing,  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the 
communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?"  and  here  it  ia 
not  used  to  denote  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  \\\q  fellow- 
ship which  Christians  have  with  the  blood  and  body 
of  Christ,  in  partaking  of  the  supper,  xvgiaxov  dempowy 
Lord's  Supper,  at  1  Cor.  xi.  20  ;  is  entirely  a  different 
thing  from  xotvavta,  commimiorij  1  Cor.  x.  16.  This 
latter  word  means,  and  is  most  usually  rendered  fel- 
lowship :  as  at  Acts  ii.  42:  1  Cor.  i.  9  :  2  Cor.  viii.  4  : 
Gal.  ii.  9:  Eph.  iii.  9:  Phil.  i.  5 :  ii.  1 :  iii.  10; 
1  John  i.  3 :  communion  is  used  to  denote  a  friendly 
interchange  and  unity  of  sentiments :  Gen.  xxiii.  8, 
Abraham  and  the  sons  of  Heth  :  Gen.  xlii.  24,  Joseph 
and  his  brethren  :  1  Saml.  xviii.  22,  Saul's  servants 
and  David  :  1  Saml.  xix.  3,  Jonathan  and  Saul :  Job 
\j.  2,  Job  and  Eliphaz:  Psl.  Ixiv.  5,  David^s  enemies : 
Luke  vi.  11,  The  pharisees  :  Luke  xxii.  4,  Judas  and 
the  chief  priests:  Acts  x::iv.  26,  Felix  and  Paul:  ac- 
cording to  the  inspired  use  of  the  word  communion^ 
elose  communion  is  only  applicable  to  such  Christians 
as  decline  all  friendly  intercourse;  and  how  far  this  is 
applicable  to  pedobaptists  we  leave  the  reader  to  judge  ; 
•pen  communion  an4  close  communion  are  not  scrip- 
^ral  terms:  but  as  their  measing  is  generally  knowio, 
we  shall  use  them  to  avoid  circumlocution.  Chriftiaa 
ibllowskip  and  Church  fellowship  are  two  thm  js  :  the 


171 

former  may  be  perfect  where  the  latter  does  not  exist, 
and  no  denomination  has  church  fellowship  for  another 
distinct  sect,  ahhough  they  may  have  Ciiristian  fellow- 
ship for  each  of  its  members.  'In  the  Westminster 
confession  they  distinguish  between  church  commun- 
ion and  Christian  communion.  By  the  first,  viz. 
church  communion,  they  understand  communion  with 
a  church  in  her  social  character  as  organized  under  a 
particular  form  of  doctrine,  government,  and  worship. 
By  the  second,  viz.  the  communion  of  saints,  or  Chris- 
tian communion,  they  understand  that  communion 
which  subsists  between  Christians  as  individuals  with- 
out reference  to  their  church  connexion  at  all.^ 

Dr.  J.  M.  Mason's  plea,  pp.  225, 2». 

There  are  several  religious  duties  which  are  the  acts 
of  individual  Christians :  such  as  preaching,  prayer, 
eiaging,  alms  giving-,  visiting,  &c. ;  others  are  church 
acts  and  can  not  be  performed  by  individuals:  as  li- 
censing and  ordaining  ministers,  ordaining  deacons, 
administering  and  receiving  the  Lord's  supper^  re- 
ceiving, disciplining  and  excluding  members,  settling 
and  dismissing  pastors.  &c. !  no  pedobaptist  denomin- 
ation invites  other  sects  to  join  with  them  in  all  these 
church  acts.  But  shall  we  therefore  call  them  bigoted 
and  close  communion.  If  I  should  appear  at  a  Meth- 
odist ordination,  or  a  Congregational  church  meeting, 
and  insist  on  taking  an  active  part,  alledging  that  it 
was  the  Lord's  church  meeting,  and  the  Lord's  min- 
ister to  be  ordained  ;  I  should  act  as  consistent  as  they 
do  who  urge  open  communion  for  the  same  reason. 

The  elements  of  the  Lord's  supper  must  be  bread 
and  wine  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  26,  29:  1  Cor.  xi.  23,  26.— 
The  command  and  example  of  Christ  is  the  law  of  thi« 
institution  from  which  no  church  is  at  liberty  to  depart. 
We  are  not  directed  how  often  to  repeat  this  sacrament, 
but  1  Cor.  xi.  26,  '  As  often  as  ye  do  eat  this  bread  and 
drink  this  cup.'     In  baptism  the  burial  and  resurrec- 


172 

tion  of  the  Savior  is  set  forth :  and  the  Lord^s  supper 
represents  his  sufferings  and  death  :  thus  in  the  two 
sacraments  we  commemorate  the  sufferings,  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  of  the  Lord.  The  communi- 
cants must  be  baptized  believers  regularly  admitted  to 
church  fellowship:  as  also  the  administrator:  *  The 
primitive  Christians  never  received  the  Lord's  supper 
but  from  the  hands  of  their  bishop,  or  from  one  ap- 
pointed by  him.'    Tertunaode  Corona  MUitis  p.  338. 

Some  persons  suppose  that  they  can  partake  of  the 
Lord's  supper  with  sects  holdingerroneous  sentiment?, 
and  not  thereby  fellowship  their  errors,  and  say  that 
partaking  with  them  is  only  joining  in  that  one  action. 
But  'as  the  sacramental  supper  is  the  act  of  a  church 
in  her  social  character,  we  do  by  the  very  fact  of  com- 
muning with  her,  acknowledge  her  as  a  whole:  and 
thus  by  implication  at  least,  put  the  seal  of  our  appro- 
bation to  whatever  belongs  to  her  as  a  church.' 

Dr.  J.  M.  Masoo's  Plea,  p.  236. 

Hence  partaking  with  a  church  is  publicly  declaring 
a  fellowship  for  the  whole  faith  and  practice  of  that 
church. 

The  custom  of  giving  the  Lord's  supper  to  infants 
originated  at  Alexandria,  in  Egypt,  in  the  third  cent- 
ury, and  continued  in  use  till  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance, June  14,  1415.  The  scholastic  divines  sup- 
posed it  was  essential  to  salvation,  from  a  wrong  inter- 
pretation of  John  vi.  53,  54.  They  administered  it  by 
mixing  the  bread  and  wine  in  a  spoon,  and  uniformly 
gave  it  to  all  they  baptized  :  for  the  Catholics,  using 
common  sense,  saw  that  if  the  candidate  was  fit  for  on« 
he  was  for  both  sacraments. 

•In  the  ancient  church  those  two  sacraments  were 
never  separated  the  one  from  the  other.  Infants  in  the 
third  century  were  generally  admitted  to  baptism  and 

theLord'sSUpper.'     Venema.«HiBt.Ecclesia«t..eca,.2.«ct.  1(0. 

<  It  is  manifest  that  in  the  ancient  church  it  was  u«ual 


173 

to  give  the  eucharist  to  infants,   which  custom  aro»e 
about  the  third  century. 

Badeus'  Theol.  Dogm.  book  5,  chapter  1,  section  19. 

*No  objection  can  be  made  to  this  custom  but  what 
may  with  equal  force  be  made  to  the  custom  of  baptiz- 
ing infants.' 

Dr.  Prestly'B  Adilress  on  Gi»ing  the  Lord's  Supper  to  Children,  p.  31. 

*The  visible  church  consists  of  all  that  profess  the 
true  religion,  too^ether  with  their  children^  and  is  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  out  of  which  there 
is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation  ;  the  parties  bap- 
tized are  solemnly  admitted  into  the  visible  church; 
baptism  is  not  to  be  administered  to  any  that  are  out  of 
the  visible  church ;  but  infants  descending  from  parents 
both  or  but  one  of  them  professing  faith  in  Christ  and 
obedience  to  him,  are  in  that  respect  within  the  cove- 
nant and  are  to  be  baptized.  All  baptized  persons  are 
members  of  the  church,  are  under  its  care,  and  subject 
to  its  discipline ;  and  when  they  have  arrived  at  the 
years  of  discretion  they  are  bound  to  perform  all  tht 
ditties  o(  cbxiivch  members.  Children  born  within  the 
pale  of  the  visible  church,  and  dedicated  to  God  in  bap- 
tism, are  under  the  inspection  and  government  of  the 
church,  and  when  they  come  to  years  of  discretion,  if 
they  be  free  from  scandal,  appear  sober  and  steady,  and 
have  a  sufficient  knowledof'e  to  discern  the  Lord's  body, 
they  ought  to  be  informed  that  it  is  their  duty  and  their 
privilege  to  come  to  the  Lord's  suppei.' 

Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  pp.  1 H,  287,  392,  436. 

*  During  their  minority  which  reaches  till  they  are 
more  than  thirteen  years,  according  to  the  example  of 
Ishmael,  and  till  about  sixteen  years  of  age,  they  are 
really  members  to  such  intents  and  purposes  as  that 
if  their  parents  are  dismissed  to  other  churches,  their 
children  ought  to  be  put  into  the  letters  of  dismission 

with  them.        i>r.  j.  Ootloa'*  itssay  oo  the  HoIimm  of  Oh.  Members,  p.  If. 


•The  above  doetTioe  having  been  fully  preached  in  a  preabf- 
itriaa  church  ia  the  state  of  New- York,  and  the  children  not 


174 

'It  is  objected  further  that  all  baptized  persons  are 
by  that  class  of  Christians  to  whom  I  have  attached 
myself,  considered  as  members  of  the  Christian  church  ; 
yet  those  who  are  baptized  in  infancy,  are  not  treated 
as  if  they  possessed  that  character;  particularly,  they 
are  not  admitted  to  the  sacramental  supper  :  nor  made 
objects  of  ecclesiastical  discipline.  As  this  objection 
has  in  my  own  view,  a  more  serious  import  than  any 
other  which  has  been  alledofed,  it  deserves  particular 
consideration.  In  the  first  place,  I  acknouledge  with- 
out hesitation,  that  the  conduct  of  those  with  whom 
I  am  in  immediate  communion,  and  so  far  as  I  know 
their  opinions  also,  with  regard  to  this  subject,  are  in 
a  greater  or  less  degree  erroneous  awd  indefensible.' 

Dwight'sTheol.  Sermon,    167. 

From  the  above  it  is  obvious  that  infant  commun- 
ion was  the  practice  of  the  Romish  church;  and  that 
pedobaptists  have  adopted  the  sentiment  in  their  con- 
fessions of  faith,  but  refuse  to  reduce  it  to  practice. — 
^ee  also  Zornius'  Hist.  Euchar.  Infantum :  Robinson's 
Claude:  Watt's  Ruin  and  Recovery:  Edwards  on 
Original  Sin  :  and  Ridgeley's  Bod  Divi.  vol.  I.  While 
there  was  but  one  denomination  the  Lord's  supper  was 
administeied  to  all  its  members;  but  when  Arius  and 
his  party  went  off,  the  true  Church  refused  to  con>- 
mune  with  them ;  when  the  church  of  Rome  became 
corrupt,  the  true  church  refused  to  commune  with 
them;  when  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  loft  the 
Roman  catholics,  the  Romish  church  refused  to  ccr> 
niane  with  them,  and  they  refused  to  commune  ii^ilii 
the  church  of  Rome,  and  the  true  church  refused  to 
eommune  with  all  these  sects.     *In  a  letter,  in  loSrJ, 


inrited  to  the  Lord's  table,  on  one  sacramental  occasion,  in  A. 
D.  1832,  while  the  chuich  was  celebrating  the  Lord's  supper, 
a  number  of  these  young  church  members  assembled  in  the  gal- 
lery, and  attended  to  the  communion  amoDg  themselves,  by  a^ 
ministering  and  receiving  pieces  of  'pumpkin  in  the  name  of  tfe« 
Lord. 


175 

to  the  brethren  of  the  Waldenses  (the  true  church)  in 
Bohemia,  Melancthon  thus  writes,  '  Since  we  agree  in 
the  principal  articles  of  Christian  doctrine  let  us  em- 
brace each   other.'    Dr.  J  M.  Mason's  Plea,  p.  W. 

But  the  Waldenses  positively  refused  to  communi- 
cate with  these  heterodox  sects. 

The  council  of  Trent,  which  continued  from  1547 
to  1564,  thus  paraphrased  the  Savior's  words,  Luke 
xxii.  19,  *  This  do^^  *  That  is  receive  the  power  of 
convertinor  these  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  into  the 
true  and  proper  substance  of  my  body  and  blood  :  and 
offering  them  up  to  my  Father,  a  propitiatory  sacrifice 
for  the  living  and  the  dead;'  this  is  called  transub- 
stantiation. 

Council  Trideut,  sess.  13,  chapt.  1,  can  4.  sees.  22,  can.  2,3. 

The  Lutherans  invented  the  doctrine  of  consub- 
stantiation,  which  affirms  that  '  with  the  bread  is  ex- 
hibited that  body  of  Christ  which  was  delivered  for 
us  ;  and  with  the  v/ine  is  exhibited  that  blood  which 
is  the  basis  of  the  new  testament.'  But  this  was  so 
oiensive  to  the  Calvinists  (Pres]:)yterians)  that  thej 
would  not  commune  with  the  Lutherans.  'John 
Knox  accepted  at  Frankfort  on  the  Maine,  the  charg« 
of  a  congregation  of  English  exiles :  and  when  th« 
congregation  had  agreed  io  adopt  the  order  of  the 
Geneva  church,  and  requested  him  to  proceed  to  ad- 
minister the  communion  accordins:  to  it,  althonofh  h« 
approved  of  that  order  he  declined    to  carry  it  intov 

effect.     Dr   T  K.  ilason'fi  Ilea,  p.lSX 

A  pious  Scotcl^man,  now  residing  in  this  city,  who 
was  a  membor  g<^  t:.s  Scotch  church  for  many  years, 
Bays  *  In  k^ccliand  there  eua  the  following  pedobaptitt 
deiiomiDit:ons.  vijI,  the  /^Qtabliched  church,  the  Cov§- 
nanters,  the  Relief  church,  the  church  of  England,  th« 
Bergers  and  the  Anti-Beigers,  (novv  iiiQ  United  Ceces- 
fiion  church,)  the  Independents,  the  Wesleyan  Metho- 
dist, and  the  Independent  MethodivSt.     Each  of  the&t 


176 

Beets  is  close  communion  in  every  sense  of  the  word. 
They  never  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper  together ; 
they  all  say,  if  we  have  reason  to  divide  into  difi'erent 
sects  we  can  not  unite  in  the  Lord's  supper,  which  is 
the  most  essential  act  of  church  fellowship.'  It  is  thus 
evident  that  the  Presbyterian  churches  in  Scotland  are 
emphatically  close  communion,  and  ever  have  been 
since  the  days  of  John  Knox. 

A  question  being  asked  president  Edwards  relating 
to  the  practice  of  European  pedobaptists,  in  the  use  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  he  answers,  ^  The  divines  of  Scot- 
land. I  find  in  many  of  their  sermons,  and  other  dis- 
courses, declare  themselves  to  strictness  in  admission 
to  the  Lord's  supper. — I  might  bring  much  to  this 
purpose  from  Mr.  Andrew  Gray's  book  of  sermons, 
1716.  So  from  Ebenezer  Erskine's  Synod ical  Sermon, 
1732  ;  and  his  discourse  on  fencing  the  tahle^  annexed 
to  his  sermon  on  John  xiv.  15.  So  from  Mr.  Williams' 
Synodical  Sermon,  1733,  where  he  sets  down  a  variety 
of  searchinof  questions,  no  less  than  twenty-seven, 
which  he  advises  to  *be  put  to  proponents,  and  their 
answers  waited  for  before  they  are  admitted,  (to  th« 
Lord's  table.)  And  now  to  pass  over  to  England  :  Mr. 
Baxter  in  his  five  disputations  has  much  that  runs  i& 
tlie  same  strain  ;  so  in  his  reformed  liturgy,  and  in  his 
Christian  concord,  where  v/e  have  his  brethren  joining 
Cheir  testimony  v/ith  bis.  Likewise.  Mr.  Charnock  in 
his  discourse  on  tho  Lord's  supper.  Mr.  Palmer  in 
his  scriptitre  rail  to  the  iiOrd's  table.  Mr.  Saunders 
in  his  Antidiatribe.  Mr.  Longley,  Mr.  Doolittle,  Mr. 
Henry,   i>r.  E?.t],   ?nd   others,   in  their  books  on  the 

Lord's  supper.'    i^residentEJward's'. 'orks,vo],  4,  pp.  437,439. 

America  was  settled  by  different  sects  of  pedobap- 
6sts,  and  that  they  vrerc  all  closs  communion  is  evident 
from  the  heads  of  agreement  entered  into  by  the  Pre^ 
byterians  and  Congregationalists  at  Saybrook,  Sept.  9, 
1708,  established  by  law  at  New-Haven»  Oct.  14, 1708, 


177 

•nd    printed  at  New-Londoo,    1710,    in  which  ihey 
provide,  chapt.  4,  sect.  3,   for  opening  communion,  in 
these    words,     ♦  That   known  members   of  particular 
churches,  constituted  as  aforesaid,  may  have  occasional 
communion  with  each  other  in  the  ordinances  of  the 
gospel,  viz.  the  word,  prayer,  sacrament,  and  singing 
psalms:     'Such  an  event,  it  is   believed,   had  never 
before  occured  in  the  United  States.    The  Presbyterian 
church  in    North  America  sprung   immediately  from 
the  established  church  in  Scotland;   the  associate  re- 
formed church,    also,    was   founded  in   the  union    of 
aiinisters  and    people  from  the   two   branches  of  the 
cecession  in  Scotland,  and  from  the   reformed  presby- 
tery;   when  they  emigrated  to  this  country  it  was  not 
So  be  expected  that  the  espirit  du  corpus,   their  char- 
.  Rcteristic  feeling,  should  perish  in    the  Atlantic  :  and 
accordingly  like  the  mother  churches,  they  maintafied 
not  only  separate  communions,  but  much  of  their  old 
reserve  and  distance,'  ^r  j  m  m 

Or-  J.  M.  Mason-e  Pica. 

Ine  colonies  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut, 
called  a  General  Council,  to  discuss  and  settle  a  sys- 
tem of  faith  and  practice,  which  convened  at  Boston, 
June  4,  1657.  Among  the  questions  discussed,  the 
second  was  this,  '  Whether  communion  of  churches 
as  such,  be  not  warrantable  by  the  word  of  God.— 
Reoords  of  Conn.''  ™,     ,  „.  ,,. 

^,J^,        /  Trumbull's  History,  vol.  1.  pp.  301,  303. 

ine  first  mmisters  of  Connecticut  and  New-Eng- 
land maintained  that  all  the  pastors'  office  power  wes 
confined  to  his  own  church  and  con^rec^ation,  and  thj^t 
the  administering  of  baptism  and  theLord's  suppm, 
m  other  churches,   was  irregular.— //oo^•6/•'5  Survey 

part  2,  pp.  69,  68.'    Tr„.b«irs  History,  vol.  1,  p.  2S3. 

When  the  pedobaptists  in  America  forsook  the 
I  practice  of  their  close  communion  mother  churches 
j  in  Europe,  and  establisned  their  united  religion  by 
jlaw,  it  is  evident  that  their  design  in  uniting  had  not 
io  much  reference  to  their  opening  communion  among 


178 

themselves,  as  to  uniting  their  forces  to  persecute  the 
Baptists  and  duakers.  New  England,  and  especially 
New  Haven,  is  the  most  unhappy  place  for  pedobap- 
lists  to  plead  for  communion  with  the  Baptists.  There 
are  so  many  Presbyterian  blue  laws  and  blue  practices 
fresh  in  recollection,  that  it  is  blushing  work  for  them 
to  name  close  communion.  The  first  man  that  ad- 
vocated 'Baptist  sentiments  in  America,  was  the  firs^t 
that  suffered  violence.  Roger  Williams  was  banished 
from  Salem,  Mass.  in  1634,  by  pedobaptist  force  and 
arms. 

In  1639,  some  Baptists  attempted  to  organize  a 
church  at  Weymouth,  14  miles  east  of  Boston.  For 
this  offense,  the  pedobaptists  arrested  John  Smith. 
John  Spur,  Richard  Sylvester,  Ambrose  Morton, 
Thomas  Macpeace  and  Robert  Lenthal,  who  were  tn- 
^  before  the  General  court  at  Boston,  March  ISth,  1639 
and  fined  from  £20  to  20s.  each,  and  threatened  with 
banishment  ifthey  persisted.       Benedict's  Hist.  p.  356. 

The  subsequent  persecutions  which  the  Baptists 
su9r)red  in  that  section  was  under  the  following  pedo- 
baptist law, enacted  by  the  General  Court  of  Mass.,  Nov. 
13,  1644.  *'  It  is  ordered  and  agreed  that  if  any  person 
within  this  jurisdiction  shall  either  openly  condemn 
or  oppose  the  baptizing  of  infants,  or  go  about  secret- 
ly to  seduce  others  from  the  approbation  or  use  there- 
of, or  shall  purposely  depart  the  congregation  at  the 
administration  of  the  ordinance,  every  such  person  or 
persons,  shall  be  sentenced  to  BANISHMENT.  See 
Records  of  Mass.  General  Court.   Benedict'sHi«.p3  59 

October  17th,  1643,  Samuel  Gorton,  John  Wickes, 
Randal  Kolden,  Robert  Potter,  Richard  Carder,  Fran- 
cis Weston,  and  John  Warner,  were  tried  by  the  Gen- 
eral Court  at  Boston,  for  being  Baptists,  and  sentenced 
to  be  shut  up  in  seperate  prisons,  and  there  to  be  set 
at  work,  and  to  wear  such  holts  or  irons  as  may  hjn- 


179 

der  their  escape.  These  men  were  kept  in  priso* 
until  March  7th,  1644,  and  then  BANISHED  by  order 
of  the  General  Court,  and  forbidden  to  return  under 
the  penalty  of  suffering  death.     b,^j,„,,  ^jat.  voi.  i,  p-  i26-i  «. 

In  1644,  a  pedobaptist  named  Painter,  who  belong- 
ed to  Hingham,  turned  Baptist,  and  refused  to  have 
his  child  sprinkled,  for  which  offense  by  order  of  the 
dourt  he  was  tied  up  and  whipt.  b,,,,^,,  ^^,^  ^^j,  i^  p.  ^g,. 

In  July,  1651,  three  Baptist  clergymen  named^ 
Clark,  Holmes,  and  Moody,  were  arrested  at  L^ni 
ten  miles  north-east  of  Boston, while  Clark  was  preacb- 
ingjon  the  Lords  day,  and  sent  to  the  prison  in  Boston, 
where  they  lay  two  weeks, and  were  fined,  one  £30,  one 
£20  and  one  £5,  and  sentenced  to  be  publicly  whif^- 
ped  if  they  refused  to  pay.  How  Moody  got  out  we 
do  not  learn;  Clark's  fine  was  paid,  but  Holmes  wa« 
whipt.  John  Spur  and  John  Hazel,  who  were  specta- 
tors, showed  signs  of  sympathy  at  Holmes'  bloody 
whipping,  which  led  the  pedobaptists  to  suspicion  that 
Spur  and  Hazel  were  Baptists,  and  they  were  arrested 
at  Boston,  and  each  sentenced  to  pay  40  shillings  and 
be  publicly  whiped,     Benedict's hi«t.  p. s&i-sre. 

In  1655,  Thomas  Gould,  Thomas  Osborne,  Edward 
Drinker,  John  George,  Richard  Goodall,  William 
Turner,  Robert  LamlDert,  Mary  Goodall,  and  Mary 
Newel,  were  imprisoned,  some  of  whom  were  whip- 
ed, and  others  left  to  dreadful  sufferings  for  denyiB|^ 
infant  baptism,  and  attempting  to  establish  a  Bap- 
tist Church  in  Boston.  Jn  May  1665,  Thomn 
Gould,  William  Turner,  and  John  Farnum,  wire 
BANISHED  by  sentence  of  the  General  Court,  at 
Boston,  and  tbsy  refusing  to  leave  the  country,  wer© 
imprisoned  again.  Through  all  these  persecutioBt, 
th«  Baptists  persevered  and  obtained  a  house  to  wcr- 
thip  in.  But  the  General  Court  passed  a  law  to  shut  it 
ap,  And  the  Baptists  found  the  following  note  on  tho 
^!oor.     "  All  persons  cro  to  tak;^  notice  th«it  by  ord«r 


180 

of  the  Court  the  doors  of  this  house  are  shut  up  ;  and 
that  they  are  inhibited  to  hold  any  meeting,  or  to  open 
the  doors  thereof  without  license  from  authority, -till 
the  General  Court  take  further  order,  as  they  will 
answer  the  contrary  at  their  peril.  Dated  at  Boston, 
8th  of  March  1680.     Edward  Rawson,  Secretary. 

Benedict's  hist.  383—400. 

Between  the  years  1727  and  1733,  there  were  28 
Baptists,  2  duakers,  and  2  Episcopalians  imprisoned 
at   Bristol,  Mass.,  (now  R.  I.)   for  Presbyterian  priest 

tax.        Benedict's  hist.  p.  443. 

In  1751,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Mouiton  was  arrested  for 
preaching  Baptist  sentiments  in  Sturbridge,  Mass.,  and 
by  public  authority  shut  up  in  prison,  and  finally 
BANISHED  as  a  vagrant  and  vagabond,  and  his  dea- 
con, Mr.  Fisk,  and  bretheren,  John  Corey,  Jeremiah 
Barstow,  Josiah  Perry,  and  John  Draper,  were  impris- 
oned in  Worcester  Jail.  The  follov/ing  property  be- 
longing  to  the  members  of  that  Baptist  church,  was  ta- 
ken and  sold  by  authority,  to  pay  the  salary  of  ihe 
Rev.  Caleb  Rice,  a  Congregational  priest.  Cash,  $36, 
7  cows,  1  heifer,  2  steers,  2  oxen,  a  flock  of  geese,  20 
pewter  plates,  1  tankard,  1  saddle,  a  trammel  and 
Mooks,  shovel,  tongs,  and  andirons,  1  pot,  1  kettle,  1 
warming  pan,  and  one  broad  axe. 

Benedict's  hist,  p.432.  432. 

In  1770,  about  400  acres  of  land,  belonging  to 
the  members  of  the  Baptist  church,  in  Ashfield,  were 
•old  at  auction,  to  pay  Congregational  priest  tax. 

Benedict's  hist.  p.  43P 

So  much  for  Puritan  inquisition,  and  Massachusetts 
epen  communion. 

We  pass  to  Connecticut,  and  shall  glance  at  her  !<► 
gflilized  persecutions.  The  following  law  was  enact- 
ed by  the  General  Court  of  Connecticut,  in  October, 
1656.  *  That  no  tE)wn  within  this  Jurisdiction  shall 
entertain  any  Quakers,  Ranters,  Adamites,  or  such 
lik«  notorious  heretics,  aor  suffer  thsm  to  contiaue  fa 


181 
them  above  the  space  of  14  days,  upon  the  penalty  of 

'  In  1658,  the  Court  of  New  Haven  made  a  similar 
law  increasing  the  penalties  and  prohibiting  all  con- 
versation of  the  common  people  with  any  of  those  her- 
etics (duakers,  Baptists,  &;c.)  and  all  persons  from  giv- 
ing them  any  entertainment  npon  penalty  of  £5.' 

Trumbull's  hist.  ofCt.  Vol.  1,  p.  299,  300. 

'And  it  is  farther  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid, 
that  whatsoever  person  not  being  a  lawfully  allow- 
ed {Congregational)  minister  of  the  gospel  shall  pre- 
sume to  profane  the  holy  sacraments  by  administering 
or  making  a  show  of  administering  them  to  any  person 
or  persons  whatsoever,  and  being  thereof  convicted  be- 
fore the  county  court  in  such  county  where  such  oiFense 
shall  be  committed,  shall  incur  the  penalty  of  £10,  for 
every  such  oifense.  and  suffer  corporeal  punishment  by 
whipping,  not   exceeding   thirty  stripes  for   each   of- 

lense.        Records  of  the  State  of  Conn.  Vol.  5,  May  1723. 

Truml)ull's  hist.,  vol.  2,  p.  3S. 

In  1738,  the  Congregational  church  in  Milford. 
Conn.,  divided;  and  one  part  employed  Mr.  Finley,  a 
Presbyterian  minister,  as  their  pastor;  but  the  Con- 
gregational part  were  so  enraged  at  his  Presbyterian- 
ism,  that  they  transported  him  to  New- Jersey,  as  a 
vagrant ;  (and  I  believe  that  the  two  churches  in  Mil- 
ford,  do  not  commune  together  to  this  day.) 

Trumbull's  Hi-story,  vol.  2,  p.  177. 

In  December,  1740,  John  Merriman,  pastor  of  the 
Baptist  church  in  Wallingford,  invited  the  Rev.  Phil- 
emon Robbins,  pastor  of  the  Congregational  church 
in  Bran  ford,  to  preach  for  him.  Mr.  Robbins  accepted 
the  invitation,  and  preached  to  the  Baptist  church  in 
Wallingford,  January  6,  1741 ;  for  this  offense^  the 
New-Haven  Congregational  Association  laid  Mr,  Rob- 
bins under  censnre,  and  finally  deposed  him  from  the 
ministry.  A  majority  of  the  church  at  Branford  de- 
ciding with  their  pastor,   rather  than   with   the  New- 

16 


182 

Haven  Association,  renounced  the  Saybrook  and 
adopted  the  Cambridge  platform :  for  this  act  the 
New-Haven  Association  held  the  Branford  church  un- 
der censure  till    1748.    Trumbull'8  History,  vol.  2,  pp.  196,  232. 

In  1741,  Rev.  Mr.  Humphreys,  of  Derby,  Conn.,  a 
Congregational  minister,  had  preached  to  a  Baptist  so- 
ciety, and  on  that  account  was  soon  after  deprived  of 
a  seat  in  the  New-Haven  association. 

Trumbull's  History,  rol.  2,  p.  196. 

In  May  1742,  the  General  Assembly  of  Connecti- 
cut enacted  a  law,  of  which  the  following  is  an  ex- 
tract : 

'•  Whereas  this  assembly  did  by  their  act,  made  in 
the  27th  year  of  Queen  Anne,  establish  and  confirm  a 
confession  of  faith,  and  an  agreement  for  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  made  at  Saybrook  in  1708,  by  the  Rev.  El- 
ders and  Messengers  delegated  by  the  churches  in  this 

colony  ; —therefore  be  it  enacted  by   the  Gover- 

nor,Counci],  and  representatives  in  General  Court  as- 
sembled and  by  the  authority  of  the  same,  that  if  any 
ordained  minister,  or  any  other  person  licensed  as  a- 
foresaid  to  preach,  shall  enter  into  any  parish  not  im- 
mediately under  his  charge,  and  shall  there  preach  and 
exhort  the  people,  he  shall  be    denied    and   excluded 

the  benefit  of  any  law  of  this   colony: and  it  is 

further  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid- — ^ — that 
every  such  preacher,  teacher,  or  exhorter,  shall  be 
sent  as  a  vagrant  person,  by  warrant  from  any  assist- 
ant or  justice  of  the  peace,  from  constable  to  constable, 
out  of  the  bounds  of  the  colony." 

Records  of  the  Colony  of  ConD.,1742.  Trumboire  hist  ofConn.,*©!.  2,  p,162-165. 

In  February,  A.  D.  1744,  fourteen  persons  were 
arrested  at  Sayville,  in  the  town  of  Saybrook,  for 
holding  a  Baptist  mee  ting  :  the  charge  brought  against 
them  was  :  ''^for  holding  a  meetings  contrary  to  law, 
on  God's  holy  Sahhath-dayP  They  were  arraigned, 
tried,  fined,  and  driven  on  foot,  through  a  deep  mud, 
to  New-London  jail,    a  distance   of  25   miles,   where 


183 

they  were  thrust  into  prison,  without  food,  fire,  or 
beds,  and  kept  in  dreadful  sufferings  for  several  weeks  : 
and  probably  would  have  perished  had  not  some  Bap- 
tist brethren,  residing  at  New-London,  Great  Neck, 
carried  them  provisions.  One  of  the  imprisoned  was 
an  infant,  carried  in  her  mother's  arms ;  which  infant 
afterwards  became  the  wife  of  Mr.  Stephen  Webb,  of 
Chester.  Another  was  an  unconverted  man  by  the 
name  of  Job  Buckley;  the  prayers,  and  Christian  pa- 
tience, with  which  these  Christians  bore  their  sufferings 
in  jail,  were  blessed  to  his  conversion  ;  when  they 
v/ere  released  they  formed  a  church  at  Sayville,  plac- 
ing his  name  first  on  the  list  of  the  constituent  mem- 
bers. 

In  1744,  the  Congregational  church  in  Canterbury, 
under  the  care  of  Rev.  James  Cogswell,  divided  :  and 
a  part  organized  on  the  Cambridge  platform.  John 
Cleaveland  and  Ebenezer  Cleaveland,  who  were  stu^ 
dents  in  Yale  College,  visited  Canterbury  and  attended 
the  Cambridge  meeting,  and /or  this  offense  they  were 
both  expelled  from  college,  Nov.  19,  1744. 

Trumbull's  History,  vol.  2,  pp.  178,  182. 

November  23,  1744,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Humphreys,  of 
Derby,  Rev.  Mr.  Leavenworth,  of  Waterbury,  and 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Todd,  of  Northbury,  ordained  the  Rev. 
Jonathan  Lee,  of  Salisbury,  who  had  adopted  the 
Cambridge  instead  of  the  Saybrook  platform.  Mr. 
Lee  was  a  man  of  distinguished  abilities  and  piety ; 
but  his  embracing  the  Cambridge  platform,  was  so 
great  an  offense,  that  the  New-Haven  Association  not 
only  refused  to  fellowship  him,  but  actually  suspended 
the  three  above  clergymen  who  ordained  him.  from 
all  associational  communion.  7r„mbaii'sHistory,voi.2,p.i96. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  whole  colony  was 
divided  into  parishes,  and  that  the  law  had  established 
the  Saybrook  platform  as  the  religion  of  each  parish; 
m  that  the  Baptist  was  not  only  deprived  of  all  enter- 


184 

tainment,  however  willing  to  pay  for  it,  and  from  all 
conversation  with  the  people,  but  they  could  not  preach 
the  gospel  or  baptize  in  any  part  of  the  colony  with- 
out preaching  in  a  Congregational  parish,  and  thus  ex- 
pose themselves  to  a  fine  of  £10,  a  whipping  of  thirty 
stripes,  and  BANISHMENT  from  the  colony  as  va- 
grants. 

But  notwithstanding  all  that  we  have  suffered,  and 
, still  suffer  from  our  pedobaptist  brethren,  our  refusing 
to  commune  with  them  is  not  a  retaliation  :  but  arises 
from  a  fear  of  deviating  from  the  law  of  our  Savior, 
which  regulates  this  institution  ;  and  our  design  in 
publishing  these  facts  is  not  to  injure  our  persecutors, 
but  simply  to  inquire  who  has  the  greatest  cause  to 
complain  of  close  communion,  and,  where  in  reality 
is  the  practice  found. 

i  When  the  church  of  England  broke  off  from  the 
Ex)nian  Catholics  they  ceased  to  commune  with  tlieni 
and  all  other  sects.  A  pious  Englishman  residing  in 
this  city,  has  furnished  me  with  the  following  inform- 
ation and  documents  :  '  The  church  of  Entrjand  will 
not  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper  with  any  person  who 
can  not  produce  a  certificate  of  his  birth  and  bnptij?m, 
from  under  the  hand  of  the  parish  officer  where  he 
was  born  :  and  the  baptism  must  have  been  adminis- 
tered by  an  Episcopal  minister,  and  no  other;  the 
church  must  also  have  proof  that  the  communicant 
has  been  confirmed  in  the  Episcopal  church,  if  not  he 
can  not  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper.  A  certificate 
of  birth  and  baptism  from  a  dissenter  will  not  be  ac- 
cepted, nor  can  any  one  gain  admittance  to  the  church- 
man's  communion  by  it. 

[copy  of  register.] 
No.  These  are  to  certify  that  N.  son  of  N.  N. 

and  S.,  kis  wife,  who  was  daughter  of  N.  N.,  was  born 
at  No.  in  street,   in  the  parish  of 


185 

in  the  county  of  the  day  of  in  the 

year  18        at  whose    birth  we   were   present.     J.  C, 
S.  W.,  K.  R.     Registered   at  this  day  of 

18  L.  D.,  Register. 

[copy  of  a  churchmans'  certificate.] 
N.,  son  of  N.  N.  and  S.,  his  wife^  was  born  the 
day  of  18  and   baptized   the  day    of 

18  as  appears  by   the   register  of  births 

and  baptisms,  belonging  to  the  parish  of  Wit- 

ness my  hand,  this  day  of  18 

S.  G.,  Curate.' 

The  Episcopal  confession  of  faith  says  :   'And  there 

shall  no?ie  be  admitted  to  the  holy  communion  until 

such    time   as    he   be    confirmed,     (by    one    of    the 

Episcopal  bishops,)  or  he  be  ready  and  desirous  to  be 

COniirmeGl.      Book  cfCommoE Prayer,  under rCoafirmatioa. 

'Confirmation  seemed  to  give  as  it  were  the  last 
stroke  to  perfection,  and  to  lay  on  the  top  stone  by 
which  a  person  was  counted  worthy  of  the  name  of  a 
Christian,  and  a  participation  of  the  Eucharist :  he 
therefore  that  was  not  confirmed,  icas  not  e?itiUed  or 
'admitted  to  the  Eucharist.' 

J.  Hanmer's  Treatises  on  ConSrmatioB,  p.  21. 

Hence  Episcopal  confirmation  is  an  indispensible 
qualification  for  communing  with  them;  and  if  they 
admit  those  whom  they  have  not  confirmed  they  vio- 
late their  creed.  The  Episcopalians  pretend  that  they 
have  a  regular  succession  of  ministers  from  the  apos- 
tles ;  and,  therefore,  they  have  the  only  true  priesthood 
and  church  order;  they  look  on  the  Presbyterians, 
Methodists,  &c.  as  not  authorized  to  preach  the  gospel 
or  administer  its  sacraments,  and  therefore  will  not 
even  admit  them  to  preach  in  Episcopal  pulpits ;  and 
the  British  churches  will  not  commune  with  the  Amer- 
ican EpiscopalianSo  Or.  J.  Milner,  went  to  England 
in  1836,  and  Br.  F.  L.  Hawks,  in  1837,  but  neither  af 
fthem  were  permitted  to  preach  in  EpisjC0j)al  J)ulpitg 


186 

because  they  had  not  been  ordained  by  British  Episco- 
pal hands.  We  are  the  only  true  church,  says  the 
American  Episcopahan,  and  if  the  different  sects 
wish  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper  from  our  priests^ 
hands,  thereby  acknowledging  us  right,  we  will  not 
prevent  them  ;  but  we  will  not  go  and  commune  with 
Methodist  and  Presbyterian  errors,  neither  can  we,  for 
their  ministers  are  not  lawfully  ordained  and  prepared 
to  administer.  But  after  all  their  boasted  Episcopal 
succession  of  bishops,  they  are  obliged  to  acknowledge 
themselves  dissenters  from  the  Roman  Catholics,  as  late 
as  1558  ;  and  if  the  Episcopalians  are^he  true  churcJi^ 
because  of  their  apostolical  ordinations,  then  for  the 
same  reason  the  Roman  Catholics  are  the  true  church, 
yea,  Tnore  than  the  true  church,  for  the  Episcopalians 
are  mere  dissenters  from  the  Roman  Catholics.  But 
even  the  Catholics  fail  of  their  succession  of  bishops, 
for  'One  extraordinary  event  afforded  in  the  ninth 
century,  a  ludicrous  interruption  to  the  boasted  suc- 
cession of  regular  bishops  from  the  days  of  St.  Peter, 
the  election  of  a  female  Pope,  who  is  said  to  have  ably 
governed  the  church,  for  three  years,   till  detected  by 

the  birth  of   a  child.'    Tytler'a  General  History,  p.  119. 

Whatever  pretensions  Episcopalians  make  to  open 
communion,  it  is  certain  that  their  creeds  and  tenets 
bind  them  to  close  communion,  and  other  pedobaptists 
know  it  and  treat  them  accordingly :  'Our  readers 
have  noticed  that  when  we  spoke  of  the  ground  as- 
sumed by  the  leading  papers  of  the  Episcopal  church, 
in  this  country,  in  denying  the  ordinations  of  other 
churches,  we  have  always  said  except  the  Catholics; 
and  have  also  considered  the  doctrine  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  and  a  distinction  of  ranks  in  the  Chris- 
tian ministry  as  the  radical  principle  op  popery.' 

New-York  Evangelist,  August  Q,  1838. 

Can  Presbyterians  commuae  with  the  radical  prin- 
eiple^  of  Popery? 


187 

The  Episcopal  Methodists  are  clo^  commanion. — 
For  information  on  this  point,  we  are  not  to  apply  to 
some  ignorant  individual;  or  to  the  disorganizing  prac- 
tice of  their  churches;  but  to   their  discipline,  pub- 
hshed  by   authority;   to   illustrate  the  facts  contained 
in  their   discipline,    we  will  suppose   that  myself  and 
wife  resolve  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper  with  the 
Methodists  :   we  go  with  thdr  discipline  in  hand,  open 
at  chapt.  1,  sect.  22.    '  Of  the  Lord's  Supper. — Ques- 
tion. Are  there  any  directions  to  be  given  concerning 
the  Lord's  supper?       Ans.  2,  Let  no  person  that 
IS  NOT  A  MEMBER  OP  OUR  CHURCH  be  admitted  to  the 
communion    without   exaTninat'wny    and  some  token 
given  by  an  elder  or  deacon.^     ¥/e  submit  to  the  ex- 
amination, and  then  ask  what  they  mean  by  the  word 
token.      Ans.    •  This  may  certify  that  my  understand- 
ing of  that  clause  m  the  discipline  which  requires  an 
examination,  and  some  token  to  be  given  by  an  elder 
or  deacon,  to  entitle  a  person,   not  of  our  churchy   to 
commue  with  us^   is  that  a  ticket,  or  certificate 
should  be  given  to  such   persons :  signifying  that  he 
or  8he  is  considered  worthy,  and  therefore  is  permitted 
to  come  to   the  communion  table.^     New-York,   Oct. 
2j  1834,    (signed,)   N.  Bangs.     With  this  instruction, 
we  go  to  one  of  the  elders,  and  petition  for  a  token  or 
ticket]  he  being  faithful  to  his  charge,   opens  the  dis- 
cipline and  reads  chapt.   2,   sect.   6,      '  Of  Dress. — 
(Question,    Should  we  insist  on  the  rules  concerning 
dress  1     Ans.  By  all  means;    this  is  no  time  to  give 
any  encouragement  to  superjfiuity  of  apparel;  there- 
fore give  no  tickets  to  any  till  they  have  left  off  su- 
perfluous ornaments — allow  no  exempt  cases,    better 
one  suffer  than  many— givQ   no  tickets  to   any  that 
wear  high  heads ^  enormous  bonnets j  rifffies,  or  rings? 
Finding  ourselves  defeated,    by  reason   of  my   wife's 
dress,  she  puts  on  a  plain  Quaker  suit  and  returns,  we 
meet  the  Methodist,  and  he  now  opens  the  Discipline 


188 

at  chapt.  1.  sect.  22,   Aus.  3,   and  reads,    '  A^  perstm 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper  among  us,  who 
IS  guilty  of  any  practice  for  which  we  would  exclude 
a  member  of  our  church,'     I  nov\^  inquire,    for  what 
will   you   exclude   your   members?     The    Methodist 
inquires  of  me,    ^Sir,  art  thou  a  Ba^ptist  minister?'     I 
reply,  I  am.     He  then  reads  from 'the  Discipline,  chapt. 
J,  sect.  18,  Quest.  3,     *  What  shall  bedone  with  those 
fniiiisters^   or  preachers,    v/ho   ht)ld  and  disseminate 
j5ublicly,  or  privately^  doctrines,  which  are  contrary 
10  OUR  articles  of  religio^i?     Ans.  Let  the  same  pro- 
cess be  observed   as  in  cases  of  gross  immorality.'' — 
The  Discipline  then  proceeds  to  show  how  they  must 
be  dealt  with,  and  if  they  do  not  repent,  and  embrace 
Methodism,  they  must -be  expelled  from  the  church. — 
The  Methodist  now  lifts   up  his  eyes  and   asks   me, 
^Have  you  ever  been  guilty  of  holding  or  dissemin- 
ating doctrines  which  are  contrary  to  our  articles  of 
religionV     I  reply,  yes,  sir,  repeatedly;   and  am  con- 
scientiously bound  to  continue.      The   Methodist   re- 
plies, then  our  Discipline  says,   chapt.  1,  sect.  22,  ans. 
3.   '  You  can  not  have  a  seat  at  the  Lord's  table  among 
us,  for  you  are  guilty  of  the  same  practices,  for  which 
we  exclude  our  ministers.'     My  wife  renews  her  re- 
quest, and  the  Methodist  opens  the  Discipline  at  chapt. 
2,  sect.  7,  ans.  3,    '  If  a  member  of  our  church  shall 
be  clearly  convicted  of  endeavoring  to  sow  dissention, 
in  any  of  our  societies,  by  inveighing,    against  either 
our  doctrine  or  discipline :  such  person  so  offending^ 
shall   be   first  reproved   by   the   senior   minister,    or 
•preacher  of  the  circuit,  and  if  :he  persist  in  such  per- 
nicious practice  he  shall  be  expelled  from  the  church.' 
Madam,  says  the  Methodist  €id  you  ever  speak  against 
the  Methodist  doctrine,  or  ^discipline?     My  wife  re- 
plies, I  have  repeatedly^  ^and  shall  again.      Well,  says 
the  Methodist,   our  Discipline  says,  chapt.  1,  sect.  22, 
ans,  3.  ^  You  can  aat  be. admitted  to  the  Lord's  suppef 


189 

among  us.'  Thus  the  letter  of  the  Discipline,  shuts 
us  out,  and,  not  only  us,  but  all  persons  who  do  not 
believe^  preachy  and  dress  like  the  Methodist.  Again, 
to  illustrate  the  fact  that  the  Methodist  Discipline  is 
close  communion  :  say,  let  a  perfect  Methodist  sister 
put  on  an  ^enormous  bonnet^  ruffles^  and  riiigs^^and 
carry  a  high,  head  f  let  her  also  embrace  and  declare 
the  following  doctrines:.  'God,  from  all  eternity,  did 
by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel,  of  his  own  will, 
freely  and  unchangeably,  ordain  whatsoever  corner  to 
pass;  by  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of 
his  ^lory,  some  men  and  angels  were  predestinated 
UBto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to  death, 
these  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  foreor- 
dained, are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed, 
and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  can 
not  be  either  increased  or  diminished  ;  neither  are  any 
others  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually^  called,  justified, 
adopted,  sanctified  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only  ;  the 
rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased  to  pass  by,  and  t© 
ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath,  for  tflieir  sins,  to 
tU.e  praise  of  his  glorious  justice.' 

Presbyterian  Confession  of  Paith,  pp.  1-5,  19. 

The  Methodist  must,  ao;reeabie  to  their  Discipliin', 
(chapt.  2,  sect.  6  and  7.)  exclude  her,  and  at  her  expul- 
sion, shall  read  to  her  from  the  Discipline,  (chapt.  2, 
sect.  7.)  ''After  such  forms  oi  trial  and  expulsion, 
sireh  persons  siiall  have  no  privileges  of  society  or  of 
^Sacraments  in  our  churchy  without  contrition^  coftfcss- 
ion,  and  proper  trials  The  sister  being  expelled 
for  embracing  Presbyterian  doctrine,  and  wearing  a 
fashionable  dress,  immediately  unites  with  the  Presby- 
terian church,  and  taking  a  certificate  of  her  standirjg, 
siie  returns  next  Lord's  day,  and  offers  to  commune 
with  the  Methodists.  They  ask  her  if  she  is  sorry 
that  she  embraced  such  wicked  doctrine,  and  put  on 
such  apparrel  ?     She  says  no.       They  ask  if  she  will 


190 

come  Oft  ?ria/ for  six  months  ?  She  says  no.  Will 
they  now  admit  her  to  the  Lord's  table  ?  If  they  do, 
they  break  their  discipline  ;  if  they  do  not,  it  can  only 
be  because  she  is  a  Presbyterian.;  and  if  they  can  not 
admit  her,  how  can  they  admit  the  whole  Presbyteri- 
an church  ?  If  ever  a  Methodist  should  ask  you  to 
commune  with  them,  it  would  be  an  appropriate  reply 
to  say,  your  Discipline  Jorbids  it.  However  open 
communion  some  churches  tire  in  practice,  it  is  still 
evident  that  such  practice  at  once  violates  their  own 
Greed  and  the  laws  of  Christ,  The  principal  differ- 
ence between  the  Baptists  and  pedobaptists  in  this  mat- 
ter is,  that  the  Baptists  adhere  to  the  Bible  and  their 
creedjwhile  the  pedobaptists  discard  both  for  the  sake  of 
open  communion. 

In  the  Lord's  commission  he  determined  the  order 
of  administering  the  two  Sacraments.  Matt,  xxviii 
18 — 20  :  '"'  Go  ye  therefore  and  /uadi^rvgare  make  disci- 
ples of  all  nations  §a7ixit,ovTe.z  immersing  them.  &c., 
teaching:  them  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you."  Matt.  xxvi.  26:  "Take,  eat,  this 
is  my  body,  (kc."  l^he  first  work  is  to  make  disciples, 
the  second  ic>  immerse  them,  the  third  to  teach  them 
to  do  as  Christ  had  commanded  the  Apostles  ;  that  is, 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  among  other  duties. 
In  addition  to  this  law  we  have  Christ's  example. 
The  Savior  was  immersed,  Matt.  iii.  13 — 17:  but 
he  did  not  cat  the  supper  till  Matt.  xxvi.  26 — 30: 
about  three  years  after.  We  have  no  authority  for 
changing  the  order  or  substantial  elements  of  the  Sac- 
rameiits.  If  we  should  change  the  breaid  and  wine 
for  cheese  and  water,  or  administer  the  wine  before 
the  bread,  would  pedobaptists  join  with  us  in  these  in- 
novations? If  it  were  a  Baptist  or  a  pedobaptist  ta- 
ble, we  might  make  new  rules  for  its  administration. 
But  it  is  the  Lord's  table,  and  we  must  observe  the 
l.^aD'5    LAWS  respecting  it.     All   churches    require 


in 

some  qualifications  in  the  candidate  for  the  Lord^s 
Supper,  and  consider  them  indispensible.  Hcnc«,  to 
consistently  commune  among  themselves,  even  pedo- 
baptists  must  agree  as  to  the  number  and  kind  of  pre- 
requisites. How  can  two  walk  together  except  they 
be  agreed  ;  (Amos  iii.  3.)  And  how  can  they  agree; 
except  they  unitedly  follow  the  inspired  rule.  ''  It  is 
an  indispensible  qualification  for  this  ordinance,  that 
the  candidate  for  communion  be  a  member  of  the  visi- 
ble church  of  Christ,  in  full  standing.  By  this  I  in- 
tend that  he  shall  be  such  a  member  of  the  church  as 
1  have  formerly  described,  to  wit :  That  he  should  be 
a  person  of  piety,  that  he  should  have  made  a  public 
profession  of  religion,  and  that  he  shonld  have  been 

DaptlZed.       Dwight's  Theol.,  Sermon  lee. 

Mr.  Sawyer  says,  p.  21,  'Sprinkling  is  baptism,  and 
immersion  is  not.'  Hence,  those  who  are  immersed 
are  not  qualified  to  partake  at  his  communion  table. — 
The  Baptists  say,  that  immersion  is  baptism,  and  those 
who  are  only  sprinkled  are  not  qualified  for  commun- 
ion'at  the  Lord's  table.  Here  is  an  obstruction  to  our 
union,  and  the  only  way  to  remove  it  is  to  let  the 
scriptures  decide  what  is  Baptism.  For  'the question 
concerning  a  church  in  order  to  communion,  ought  to 
be,  what  is  her  substantial  character,  has  she  the 
truth,  the  ordinances ,  the  spirit  of  Christ.^ 

Dr.  J.  M.  Mason's  Plea,  p.  342. 

The  practice  of  the  Apostles  is  a  faithful  comment 
on  the  Savior's  law ;  as  the  Lord's  supper  is  a  church 
act,  it  was  not  administered  by  the  Apostles  till  after 
the  church  was  organized:  Acts  ii.  42.  The  120  at 
Acts  i.  15 — 22,  were  all  baptized  believers.  When  Peter 
preached,  Acts  ii.  14 — 36,  many  were  convicted  or 
pricked  in  their  heart,  and  cried  out,  Acts  ii.  37,  what 
shall  we  do?  Peter  said,  repent  and  be  immersed.— 
Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  or  believed 
in  Christ,    Acts  ii.  41,    were   immersed  aad  added  t» 


192 

them,  and  they  continned  steadfastly  in  the  apostles' 
doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  iu  breaking  of  bread.— 
Here,  several  things  are  expressed  and  practiced.  1- 
We  find  a  church  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  baptized 
believers.  2.  We  find  three  thousand  converted.  3. 
These  three  thousand  are  baptized.  4.  They  are 
added  to  the  church.  5.  They  agree  in  faith  with 
the  church.  6.  They  are  acknowledged  in  church 
fellowship.  7.  They  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper. 
As  these  are  apostolical  prerequisites  we  dare  not  add 
or  diminish  ;  therefore,  this  is,  and  ever  has  been  the 
creed  of  the  true  church  :  '  The  fellowship  of  the 
apostles  is  linked  to  the  apostles  doctrines^  and  to  their 
breaking  oj  bread  and  prayers,  Acts  ii.  42  ;  and  \i  a 
church  defects  from  the  same,  it  sets  other  churcl  os 
loose  in  like  manner  from  communion  with  them. — 
Unity  of  faith  binds  them  mutually  to  observe  the 
rules  of  fraternal  communion,  and  a  defection  in  faith 
gives  discharge  from  them.'  j.  Kiuieweirs  works,  voi.  2, p.  ew. 

'I  agree  with  the  advocates  of  close  communion  in 
two  points  :  1.  That  baptism  is  the  initiating  ordi- 
nance, which  introduces  us  into  the  visible  church; 
of  course  where  there  is  no  baptism  there  are  no  vis- 
ible churches.  2.  That  we  ought  not  to  commune 
with  those  who  are  not  baptized,  and  of  course  are 
not  church  members,  even  if  we  regard  them  as  Chris- 
tians. Should  a  pious  Cuaker  so  far  depart  from  his 
principles,  as  to  wish  to  commune  with  me  at  the 
Lord's  table,  while  he  yet  refused  to  be  baptized,  I 
could  not  receive  him  ;  because  there  is  such  a  rela- 
tionship established  between  the  two  ordinances  that  I 
have  no  right  to  separate  them.  The  only  question 
then  is,  whether  baptism  by  sprinkling  is  valid  bap- 
tism .      Dr.  Griffin's  fPresident  of  William's  College,)  Letter  on  Baptism. 

Pedobaptists  justify  close  communion  by  their  own 
practice.  Suppose  here  are  thirty  unbaptized  converts, 
the  father,  mother,  brothers,  sisters,  (fee,  of  Mr.  Saw- 


193 

ycr.  The  Lord's  supper  is  to  be  administered  m  hk 
church,  and  all  these  converts  go  to  commune  with 
Mr.  Sawyer,  will  he  admit  them  while  unbaptized  ? 
certainly  not:  but,  suppose  he  sprinkles  ten  of  them, 
and  they  partake  of  the  supper,  the  remaining  twenty 
refusing  to  be  baptized  are  not  admitted.  The  next 
Lord's  day  the  whole  thirty  offer  themselves  to  our 
communion,  but  we  can  not  admit  any  of  them,  be- 
cause they  are  not  baptized  ;  suppose  that  ten  of  those 
who  were  not  sprinkled  are  now  immersed,  and  admit- 
ted to  fellowsnip  in  the  Baptist  church,  the  remaining 
twenty  can  not  be  admitted,  although  ten  have  been 
sprinkled.  The  remaining  ten  unite  with  the  Quakers. 
Now  none  of  these  sects  can  partake  of  the  Lord's 
supper  together  ;  for  neither  the  Baptist,  nor  the  pedo- 
baptist  will  partake  with  the  (Quakers.  By  this  illus- 
tration it  is  evident,  that  Mr.  Sawyer  will  not  commune 
with  his  own  father,  &c.  whatever  evidence  they  may 
give  of  piety,  until,  in  his  judgment  they  are  baptized. 
Pedobaptists  say  that  we  put  up  the  bars,  by  not  ad- 
mitting them  to  commune  with  the  Baptists.  But  sup- 
pose that  the  two  sacraments  are  to  be  administered  in 
the  Baptist  church  ;  the  elements  are  prepared,  and  a 
pedobaptist  appears,  saying,  Sir.  I  wish  to  commnne 
with  your  church.  We  ask,  what  do  you  mean  by 
co77imu7iing  7  He  replies,  to  partake  of  one  of  the 
sacraments.  We  ask,  how  many  sacraments  are  there 
in  Christ's  church  ?  He  replies,  two  :  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper.  We  ask,  which  is  to  be  received 
first?  He  replies,  baptism.  We  ask,  will  you  partake 
with  us  in  the  first  ?  He  replies,  no  ;  baptism  is  a  mere 
non-essential ;  I  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  it  except 
to  ridicule  and  throw  contempt  upon  it,  and  on  those 
who  practice  it ;  but  I  wish  to  commune  with  you 
in  the  second  sacrament,  the  Lord's  supper.  We  re- 
ply, if  you  can  not  partake  with  us  in  the  first  sacra- 
ment, we  can  not  invert  and  break  the  divine  rules  t& 

ir 


194 

^ve  you  the  second.  The  pedobaptist  replies  then, 
you  put  up  the  bars  against  me.  We  reply,  no,  if 
there  are  any  bars  they  are  put  up  by  the  pedobaptists, 
for  while  you  refuse  to  commune  with  us  in  the  first 
sacrament  how  can  we  partake  with  you  in  the  second. 
When  we  ask  the  pedobaptists  to  come  and  partake  with 
us  in  the  first  sacrament,  they  say  we  are  proselyting, 
and  obstinately  refuse  ;  but  when  they  ask  us  to  partake 
with  them  in  the  second  ordinance,  if  we  decline,  they 
say  we  are  bigoted  and  close  communion  ;  but  we 
have  as  much  ground  for  complaining  because  pedo- 
baptists will  not  come  and  be  baptized  with  us,  as  they 
have  to  be  troubled  because  we  will  not  partake  of 
the  Lord's  sapper  with  them. 

A  short  time  since  a  pedobaptist  brother  of  this 
city  related  to  me  an  occurrence  respecting  a  certain 
baptist  minister,  refusing  to  admit  a  Presbyterian  lady 
to  the  Lord's  supper.  She  being  about  to  leave  the 
town,  and  reside  where  she  could  not  have  church 
privileges.  While  1  was  amused  with  his  weakness, 
I  pitied  his  ignorance,  and  left  him.  The  actors  in 
this  scene,  to  which  he  had  reference,  were  not  a  Bap- 
tist minister  and  a  Presbyterian  lady,  but  J.  M.  Mason, 
D.  D.,  a  Presbyterian  minister  in  the  city  of  New- 
York  in  1810,  and  a  female  member  of  the  Dutch 
Reformed  Church  ;  an  account  of  which  you  will  find 
in  Dr.  Mason's  Plea,  p.  6,  as  related  by  the  publisher 
of  that  work  in  1816.  Dr.  Mason,  said,  'one  of  these 
occasions  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  forget ;  he  had 
been  distributing  tokens  of  admission  to  the  Lord's 
supper  ;  after  the  congregation  had  retired  he  perceived 
a  young  woman  at  the  lower  end  of  an  aisle,  reclining 
in  a  pensive  attitude  ;  as  he  approached  her  she  said, 
Sir,  I  am  afraid  I  have  done  wrong.  Doctor.  Why 
have  you  done  wrong?  Lady.  I  went  up  with  the 
communicants  and  received  a  token,  but  am  not  a 
member  of  your  church,  and  I  could  not  be  at  rest  riU 


195 

I  had  spoken  to  you  about  it.  Dr.  To  what  church 
do  you  belong?  L.  The  Dutch  Reformed  church, 
and  if  you  wish  it  I  can  satisfy  you  of  my  character 
and  standing  there.  Dr.  But  what  made  you  come 
for  a  token  without  mentioning  the  matter  before  ? 
L.  I  had  not  an  opportunity,  as  I  did  not  know  in 
time  that  your  communion  was  to  be  next  Lord's  day  ; 
I  am  sorry  if  I  have  done  wrong,  but  I  expect  to  leave 
the  city  on  Tuesday,  and  to  be  absent  I  can  not  tell 
how  lonof,  in  a  part  of  the  country  where  I  shall  have 
no  opportunity  of  communing,  and  I  wished  once 
more  before  I  went  away  to  join  with  Christians  in. 
showing  forth  my  Savior's  death.  He  (Doctor)  con- 
suhed  a  moment  with  the  church  officers,  who  were 
sfill  present,  and  it  was  thought  most  expedient  not 
to  grant  her  request ;  he  communicated  this  answer, 
as  gently  as  possible,  to  the  modest  petitioner.  She 
said  not  another  word,  but,  with  one  hand  giving  back 
the  token,  and  with  the  other  putting  up  her  kerchief 
to  her  eyes,  turned  away,  struggling  with  her  anguish 
and  the  tears  streaming  down  her  cheeks.' 

But,  it  is  asked,  why  are  churches  so  close  commun- 
ion ?  We  reply,  the  scriptures  require  it,  and  their 
whole  precept  and  example  are  opposed  to  open  com- 
munion. There  is  not  an  instance  recorded  in  the 
Bible  of  two  denominations  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
S!ipper  together.  John^  the  Baptist^  was  not  a  Meth- 
odist, or  Presbyterian ;  and  as  Christ  and  the  apostles 
were  baptized  by  him,  they  all  belonged  to  the  same 
denomination:  and  it  is  evident,  from  their  inspired 
writings,  that  the  apostolic  denomination  was  elost 
communion.  2  Thess.  iii.  6,  '  Now  we  command  you, 
brethren,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that 
ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walk- 
eth  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  naqadogiv  {tradition  or 
instruction)  which  he  received  of  us.'  See  also  Matt. 
v  33,  24  :   Rph.  ii.  X9— 22 :   I  Cor.  i.  9,  10 :  Heb.  xiii. 


196 

9,  10.  We  solemnly  believe  that  infant  sprinkling  and 
open  communion  is  disorderly  walk,  for  we  have  no 
such  traditions  or  instructions,  from  the  apostles'  pre- 
cept or  example  ;  and  therefore  we  can  neither  practice 
such  things  ourselves,  nor  countenance  them  in  others. 
Pedobaptists  say  they  will  commune  with  all  be- 
lievers. If  this  is  true,  they  make  faith  the  only  qual- 
ification for  the  Lord's  supper,  and  all  with  whom 
they  refuse  to  communicate  are  not  pious.  But  there 
are  about  one  hundred  and  thirty  denominations  of 
Christians,  and  no  pedobaptist  will  commune  with 
more  then  eight  or  ten  of  them.  '  Those  v;ho  have 
been  educated  in  Arianism  and  Socinianism  and  are 
not  yet  brought  off  from  these  fundamental  errors,  are 
by  no  means  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper.' 

President  Edwards'  Woik^,  vol.  4,  p.  409. 

If  pedobaptists  admit  those  to  their  communion  who 
condemn  and  ridicule  their  confession  of  faith,  it 
proves  that  they  esteem  their  creed  of  no  value.  And 
what  is  £:ained  by  open  communion  ?  Partaking  of 
the  Lord's  supper  changes  no  man's  faith  ;  nor  does  it 
in  the  least  unite  the  different  denominations.  The 
Presbyterian  leaves  the  Lord's  table,  saying,  '  Gcd  has 
foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  wnecfitT  stu 
or  kolifiess.^  And  the  Methodist  leaves  the  same  table 
saying,  '  He  tvho  is  a  child  of  God  to-day  may  be  a 
child  of  the  Devil  to-morrow, "^ — (Methodist  Discipline, 
1808  edition,  p.  92.) 

The  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  and  Episcopalians 
have  professed  open  communion  for  many  years.  Yet 
they  harmonize  no  more  than  the  Baptists  and  Pres- 
byterians do.  But  it  is  said  we  must  have  charity 
for  those  who  err  in  faith,  and  lay  aside  our  creeds 
and  sectarian  feelings  when  we  come  to  the  Lord's 
table  ;  but  is  it  that  same  charity  which  prompts  the 
different  denominations  to  take  up  their  creeds  and 
condemn  all  sects  but  their  own,  when  they  have  left 


1^ 

the  Lord's  table?  If  it  is  I  am  constrained  to  say,  that 
it  ia  not  that  charity  which  thinketh  no  evil.  Is  there 
no  way  of  exercising  charity  but  by  open  communion? 
Charity  and  open  comtiiunion  are  not  the  same  thing, 
if  they  were  the  apostle's  writings  could  be  thus  trans- 
lated :  1  Cor.  xiii.  13:  'Now  abideth  faith,  hope,  and 
<xy(x7trj  open  communion^  these  three;  but  the  greatest 
of  these  is  ayam]  open  communion.''  Col.  iii.  12 — 14: 
*  Put  on  therefore,  as  the  elect  of  God,  holy  and  be- 
loved, bowels  of  mercy,  kindness,  humbleness  of  mind, 
meekness,  long  suffering,  forgiving  one  another  as 
Christ  forgave  you  ;  and  above  all  these  things,  put 
on  open  communion  which  is  the  bond  of  perfectness.' 
Gal.  V.  6:  'Neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing, 
nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith  which  walketh  hy  ctyanrjq 
open  communion.^  John  xiii.  35  :  *  By  this  shall  ail 
men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have  ayamjv 
open  communion  one  to  another.'  Gal.  v.  14  :  *  For 
ail  the  lav/  is  fulfilled  in  one  word,  aynrjgng,  open  com- 
munion.^ 

The  word  ayanij  occurs  112  times  in  the  New 
Testament.  In  23  instances  it  is  translated  charity^ 
as  at  1  Cor.  xiii.  4,  8,  13.  In  one  instance  dear^  CoL 
i.  13.  And  in  88  instances  love,  as  at  Luke  xi.  42: 
John  V.  42  :  xv.  9,  10,  13  :  xvii.  26  :  Rom.,  v.  5,  8 : 
viii.  35.  39  :  Eph.  i.  4:  ii.  4.  Hence  charity  is  love  ; 
not  love  to  error  and  sin,  but  love  to  God,  to  his  laws, 
to  good  order,  and  to  holiness  for  holiness'  sake. — 
Charity  is  not  a  fool^  but  readily  distinguishes  truth 
from  error,  for  although,  1  Cor.  xiii.  4,  6 :  ^  Charity 
suffereth  long  and  is  kind  ;  yet  it  thinketh  no  evil,  re- 
joiceth  not  in  iniquity,  but  rejoiceth  in  the  truthJ 
And  while  it  is  the  spirit  of  charity  to  love  all  good 
men.  and  good  things;  yet  God,  the  author  of  charity, 
hates  sin,  reproves  error,  and  has  no  fellowship  with 
such  as  do  not  the  truth.  And  the  great  apostle  Paul, 
who  has  often  been  quoted  as  a  pattern  of  charity^ 
17* 


198 

^  accommodated  himself  to  all  classes  of  men,  and  all 
their  customs,  whenever  such  customs  did  not  imply 
a  surrender  of  truth  ;  about  custoins,  as  customs,  he 
strove  not;  yet  this  same  condescending,  accommo- 
dating Paul,  who  went  every  length,  consistent  with 
the  safety  of  substantial  principles,  would  not  stir  a 
hair's  breadth  at  the  hazard  of  injuring  them ;  here 
he  was  unyielding,  unmanageable,  inexorable  as  death.' 

Dr.  J.  M.  Mason's  Plea,  \<.  54 

Pedobaptists  say.  we  shall  all  commune  together  in 
heaven,  and  why  not  on  earth  :  the  Lord  communes 
with,  blesses,  and  multiplies  the  numbers  of  the  Bleth- 
odists,  Presbyterians,  &;c.,  and  yet  the  Baptists  will  not 
commune  with  us. 

That  the  Lord  blesses,  and  multiplies  the  number  of 
Baptists  and  Roman  Catholics  is  equally  true;  yet 
this  common  blessing  does  not  prove  the  faith  and  prac- 
tice of  either  sect  correct,  and  as  to  our  communing 
together  in  heaven,  we  must  recollect  that  there  is  not 
a  literal  table  of  bread  and  wine  above  the  skies. 
Rom.  xiv.  17 :  '  For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat 
and  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in 
the  Holy  Ghost.'  ^ 

That  the  Baptists  will  have  lost  all  their  errors, 
should  they  be  found  in  heaven  at  last,  is  evident,  and 
it  is  equally  evident,  that  there  must  be  a  great  change 
in  the  spirit  and  practice  of  the  Methodists  and  Pres- 
byterians, before  they  have  much  feoce  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost  among  themselves.  And  as  to  the  asser- 
tion, that  the  Lord  communes  v/ith  them,  they  can  not 
mean  that  He  eats  the  bread  and  drinks  the  wine  of 
the  eucharist,  but  they  must  refer  to  the  fact  that  God 
is  with  them,  and  assists  them  in  preaching,  praying, 
singing,  and  other  labors  for  the  salvation  of  souls. 
In  all  these  labors  the  Baptists  rejoice  to  commune 
with  the  pedobaptists,  and  will  ever  pray  for  a  recipro- 
cation. 


199 

The  Baptists  can  not  adnriit  that  sprinkling  is  bap- 
tism, or  pourino^  is  baptism;  hence  they  can  not  par- 
take of  the  Lord's  supper  with  the  pedobaptists,  for  the 
Bible  and  all  enlightened  Christians  affirmj  that  bap- 
tism must  precede  the  eucharist. 

'No  church  ever  gave  the  communion  to  any  per- 
son before  they  were  baptized.  Among  all  the  absurd- 
ities that  ever  were  held,  none  ever  maintained  that  any 
person  should  partake   of  the   communion   before  he 

was  baptized  .      ^^  W  U's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  chapt.  9,  sect.  2. 

'The  supper  of  the  Lord  ouoht  not  to  be  adminis- 
tered to  persons  that  are  unbaptized,  for  before  baptism 
men   are  not  considered   as  members   of   the  visible 

church.'    Bpnj   pictet's  TheoL  Hist.  p.  959. 

'If  this  ordinance  be  thus  holy  in  its  nature  and 
hallowed  in  its  titles,  it  clearly  follows  that  no  ignorant, 
no  unbaptizedj  no  wicked  person  can  be  allowed  to 
approach  the  table.' 

Methodist  Guide  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  by  J.  Sutcliflf.  p.  28. 

'  This  food  is  called  by  us  the  eucharist,  of  which 
it  is  not  lawful  for  any  to  partake  but  such  as  believe 
the  things  that  are  taught   by  us  to  be  true  and  have 

been    baptized.'    j^,gfi„  Martyrs  Apol.  2,  p.  162. 

But  it  is  said  the  want  of  baptism  is  not  the  objec- 
tion, for  the  Baptists  will  not  commune  with  all  Chris- 
tians who  are  baptized.  We  admit  that  it  is  not  the 
onli/  obstacle  ;  yet  this  is  an  insurmountable  one. 
Suppose,  for  example,  that  ten  immersed  members  of 
a  pedobaptist  church  propose  to  unite  in  communion 
with  a  Baptist  church  ;  these  individuals,  though  bap- 
tized th^^l^^-lves,  habitually  commune  with  unbaptized 
churches,  and  thus  constantly  sanction  the  practice  of 
communion  in  an  unbaptized  state.  Now  we  insist 
that  whatever  would  be  considered  unscriptural  and  a 
disciplinable  offense  in  our  own  members,  and  would 
if  persisted  in  exclude  them  from  our  fellowship,  m.ust 
equally  debar  the  individuals  in  question.     But  if  ha- 


200 

bitnal    intercommunion    with     unbaptized    chiinches 
would  not  exclude  an  individual  member  of  oirr  church 
then  it    would  be  riofht  for  «S  all  to  practice    it ;    and 
if  it   is   rii2:ht  for  us  to  sanction  the  practice  of  com- 
munion in  an  nnbaptized  state,   then  it  would  be  right 
for  113  as  clmrches  to  practice  communion  without  bap- 
tism :  and   right   to   remove  an    institution   of  Jesus 
Christ  from  the  position  he   has  assigned  it;    right  to 
■deviate  from  the  original  pattern  of  church  organiza- 
tion designed   by  infinite  wisdom,  and  repeatedly  pre- 
seiited  by  the  inspired  wrivers  for  our  imitation.      We 
shall  therefore  be  comipelled   either  to  abandon  the  po- 
sition that  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  sup- 
per,   or  debar  alike  from  our  church  fellowship  those 
who  practice  communion  without   baptism,    and  those 
who  by  intercommunion  with  them  sanction  the  prac- 
tice.     There    is   no  alternative,    there    is   no    middle 
ground;  if  the  premises  are  true,  the  consequences  must 
inevitably  follow. 

It  is  offered  as  a    reason  for   extending  church  fel- 
lowship to  immersed  niembers  of  pedobaptist  church- 
es, that  such   a  course   would  have  a  tendency  to  pro- 
mote the  practice    of  immersion   among  pedobaptists, 
inasmuch  as  many  of  them  would    be  induced  to  be 
immersed  from  the  consideration  that  it  would  secure 
to  them  the  privilege  of  communing  with  the  Baptist 
churches.      But  this  would  really  ^  be  doing  evil  that 
good   might  come^  and  besides  this,    the  influence 
would  have  directly  an  opposite  tendency.     Can   we 
think   to    win   others    to  the   observance    of  Christ's 
laws,   by  virtually  receding  from  his  laws   ourselves? 
The   most  effectual  way  to  teach  others  to  revere  the 
institutions  of  Christ,  is  to    revere   them    ourselves. 
In    refusing  to  commune   with   baptized  persons,   we 
only  come  upon  common  ground  with  the  Presbyteri- 
ans, &c. ;    for  they  will  not  commune  with  all  whorn 
Shey  acknowledge   baptized.     The  Arians  and   Uni- 


201 

yersalists  immerse,  and  the  Socinians  and  Roman  Cath- 
olics sprinkle,  but  orthodox  pedobaptists  will  not  com- 
mune with  any  of  them,  although  they  admit  that  ma- 
ny of  them  are  Christians.  In  the  case  of  the  Bap- 
tist, as  in  the  case  of  pedobaptist  churches,  the  want  of 
baptism  is  a  defect  in  the  candidate;  but  the  funda- 
mental difficulty  is  the  candidate's  error  in  faith,  of 
which  his  external  actions,  as  sprinkling,  <fcc.,  are  but 
evidences;  and  so  long  as  the  man  is  erroneous  in 
faith  he  will  continue  to  act  wrong,  and  advocate  er- 
ror; consequently  no  consistent  church  can  receive 
him.  Some  defects  in  faith,  such  as  falling  from  grace, 
sprinkling  for  baptism,  open  communion  and  infant 
church  membership,  are  not  as  fatal  as  Arianism  and 
Universalism;  yet  they  equally  destroy  church  fellow- 
ship.  If  a  man  should  be  immersed^  and  yet  believe 
the  peculiar  sentiments  of  the  pedobaptists,  this  defect 
in  fiiith  would  be  incompatible  with  his  good  st<inding 
in  a  Baptist  church.  Hence  our  care  in  exaniining 
candidates  for  church  fellowship,  and  our  discipline 
when  church  members  become  defective  in  faith. 

Now  if  we  refuse  to  receive,  and  do  discipline  and 
exclude  such  as  arp,  in  our  judgment,  holding  errors, 
(and  what  church  does  not?)  how  can  we  give  the 
Lord's  supper,  which  is  the  highest  act  of  church  fel- 
lowship, to  such  as  we  refuse  to  receive  as  members, 
and  would  expel  if  they  were  members  with  us  ?  The 
fact  of  their  having  united  with  a  pedobaptist  church, 
has  by  no  means  removed  the  ground  of  our  oujection. 
If  regeneration  and  immersion  are  the  only  qualifica- 
iions  for  communion,  then  we  must  commune  with  ma- 
ny of  our  excluded  members;  for  while  we  have  lost 
church  fellowship  for  them,  and  are  obliged  to  exclude 
them,  we  still  have  a  Christian  fellowship  for  them: 
and,  when  they  repent  of  that  particular  offense  for 
which  they  were  expelled,  we  receive  them  into  church 


202 

fellowship  again  without  requiring  anew  experience, 
or  a  new  baptism. 

The  Bible  requires  us  all  to  be  united  in  faith  as 
well  as  in  practice  ;  and  if  ever  there  is  a  time  when 
we  should  be  perfectly  of  one  mind,  it  is  when  we 
commemorate  the  death  of  our  Savior:  1  Cor.  i.  10, 
'  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  name  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  things 
and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you,  but  that  ye 
he  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind,  and  in 
the  same  judgment.'  1  Cor.  x.  16.  17,  '  The  cup  of 
blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of 
the  blood  of  Christ  ?  the  bread  which  we  break,  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  for  we  be- 
ing many  are  one  bread,  and  one  body  ;  for  we  are 
all  partakers  of  that  one  bread.^  The  apostle  here 
offers  strong  reasons  why  we  should  all  be  of  one 
mind  when  we  come  to  the  Lord's  table.  The  bread 
which  we  break,  though  made  up  of  many  particles, 
is  one  loaf;  and  we,  being  many,  are,  at  the  commun- 
ion table,  all  one  body;  and  by  partaking  of  that  one 
loaf,  we  say  to  each  other  and  to  the  world,  that  we 
are  all  of  one  mind;  and  if  we  are  not,  we  make  a 
false  representation  in  communing.  Hence  Christ 
says,  Matt.  v.  23,  24,  "  Therefore,  if  thou  bring  thy 
gift  to  the  altar,  and  there  rememberest  that  thy  broth- 
er hath  aua^ht  against  thee,  leave  there  thy  gift  before 
the  altar,  and  go  thy  way,  first  be  reconciled  to  thy 
brother,  and  then  come  and  offer  thy  gift ;'  and  Paul 
says,  Rom.  xvi.  17,  'Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren, 
mark  them  which  cause  divisions  and  offenses  contra- 
ry to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have  learned,  and  avoid 
them.'  See  also  John  xvii.  21 — 23  :  Rom.  xii.  5  :  1 
Cor,  xii.  20:  Col.  i.  24:  Eph.  iv.  15,  16—25:  Matt. 
xii.  2.5. 

There  are  but  two  things  which  keep  all  Christians 
from  being  united — first  the  want  of  union   in  faith. 


203 

and  secondly  the  want  of  union  in  practice.  But  out 
practice  is  the  result  of  our  faith,  and  we  can  not  hon» 
estly  join  in  practice,  any  further  than  we  agree  in 
faith.  This  principle  is  acted  upon  by  the  Baptist  at 
the  communion  table,  and  by  the  pedobaptist  in  many 
other  religious  matters.  The  Rev.  J.  W.  Eaton,  pas- 
tor of  the  Baptist  church  in  Bridgeport,  Conn.,  was 
conducting  a  protracted  meeting  in  his  church,  and 
wishing  assistance,  addressed  aline  to  the  Rev.  J.  H. 
Hunter,  affectionately  soliciting  him  and  his  church 
to  unite  in  the  work  of  laboring  for  the  salvation  of 
souls,  and  received  in  reply  a  letter  bearing  date  Feb. 
12,  1839;  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract : 

'There  is  one  consideration,  which,  to  my  mind, 
creates  an  impediment  in  the  way  of  my  co-operating 
with  you  in  the  manner  you  have  suggested.  If  the 
Baptist  church  and  her  ministry,  within  this  place  or 
elsewhere,  while  they  believed  and  maintained  that  in 
administering  baptism  by  immersion,  and  withholding 
the  ordinance  from  infants,  they  followed  a  more  excel- 
lent way — were  still  willing  to  concede  that  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  ordinance  by  sprinkling  is  a  valid  and 
sufficient  baptism ;  and  that  in  applying  the  rite  to 
children,  we  do  not  abuse  and  pervert  it  from  its  ori- 
ginal design — the  way  would  be  open,  so  far  as  I  can 
perceive,  for  concerted  action  in  other  respects.  I  do 
not  insist  upon  the  bar  of  close  communion,  for  here  I 
conceive  that  you  are  at  least  consistent  with  your 
other  principles,  in  reference  to  baptism.  Since  lean 
not  agree  with  the  celebrated  Robert  Hall  in  his  de- 
fense of  open  communion,  who  supposes  that  baptism 
is  not  an  essential  preliminary  for  admission  to  the 
Lord's  supper.' 

I  remark  First.  This  is  true  pedobaptist  ground. 
They  usually  refuse  to  unite  with  the  Baptiss  in  la- 
borin<7  for  the  salvation  of  souls :  and  the  reason,  as 
Mr.    Hunter  says,   is  because   we  differ   in  faith  and 


204 

practice  respecting  baptism.  With  this  in  mind,  how- 
can  they  complain  of  our  declining  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  supper  with  them,  for  the  same  reason. 

tSecondly.  It  is  known  that  'n\  Europe  and  Ameri- 
ca there  is  a  sect  of  Christians  denominated  Open 
Communion  Baptists.  This  sect  and  the  regular  Bap- 
tists, are  as  distinct  as  the  Presbyterians  and  Episco- 
palians. Pedobaptists,  who  have  not  read  extensively, 
have  supposed  that  Robert  Hall  and  others  conceded 
that  sprinkling  was  as  valid  baptism  as  immersion, 
and  therefore  admitted  pedobaptists  to  the  Lord's  sup- 
per as  baptized  persons.  But  this  is  not  correct.  The 
position  of  Mr.  Hall,  and  other  Open  Communion 
Baptists  is,  that  immersion  is  baptism,  and  sprinkling 
is  not ;  but  they  do  not  consider  baptism  an  essential 
preliminary  to  the  Lord's  supper,  as  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hun- 
ter says.  They  therefore  commune  with  pedobaptists 
as  unhaptized  Christians. 

Thirdly :  As  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hunter  says,  this  open 
communion  Baptist  sentiment  is  evidently  iticonsist- 
ent ;  for  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  all  Baptist  chur- 
ches do  baptize  all  sprinkled  Christians  that  join  them. 
Now  while  we  believ^e  with  the  pedobaptists,  that  bap- 
tism is  an  essential  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  supper, 
suppose  we  should  admit  to  the  communion  one  who 
was  only  sprinkled,  and  afterwards  that  same  person 
should  be  convinced  that  his  sprinkling  was  not  bap- 
tism, and  request  to  be  immersed  ;  would  the  Baptists 
appear  consistent  to  baptize  one  whom  they  had  al- 
ready admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper. 

Fourthly :  Since  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hunter  has  intro- 
duced Robert  Hall,  we  will  remark  on  two  other  po- 
sitions of  his.  Mr.  Hall  says,  "  If  a  man  is  fit  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  he  is  fit  for  all  the  ordinances 
this  side."  This  we  readily  admit  ;  but  still  we  do 
insist  that  God  has  established  the  order  in  which  they 
should  be  received;  and  we  should  be  as  willing  to 
be  ruled  by  Christ's  laws  as  saved  by  his  grace ;   but 


205 

he  who  communes  without  being  immersed,  partakes 
m  disobedience. 

Again.  Mr.  Hall  says,  "  It  is  the  Lord's  table,  and 
all  the  Lord's  people  should  come  to  it."  We  admit 
it  is  the  Lord's  table,  and  so  is  the  church  the  Lord's 
house  ;  and  if  we  are  obliged  on  this  account  to  re- 
ceive to  communion  all  who  wish  to  partake  with  us, 
whether  we  think  they  ha\re  the  requisite  qualifica- 
tions or  not,  we  must  for  the  same  reason  receive  to 
membership  all  who  wish  to  join  the  church,  whether 
we  esteem  them  qualified  or  not :  for  if  they  are  en- 
titled on  this  ground  to  a  seat  at  the  Lord's  table  with 
us,  they  must  be  equally  entitl(3d  to  permanent  mem- 
bership. But  no  church  on  earth  acknowledges  this 
principle  in  the  reception  of  members,  nor  can  they 
consistently  act  on  it  in  admitting  persons  to  the  com- 
munion. That  pedobaptists  consider  themselves  bap- 
tized, does  not  alter  the  case  as  it  respects  our  duty  ; 
for  unless  ive  deem  them  ba'ptized,  we  cannot  consci- 
entiously commune  with  them. 

Although  pedobaptists  will  give  the  Lord's  supper 
to  those  onl^/  whom  they  esteem  baptized,  and  thus 
are  opposed  to  Open  Communion  Baptist  principles, 
yet  they  have  fallen  into  other  errors  equally  great : 
for  while  they  will  exclude  their  own  members  for 
discarding  infant  sprinkling,  they  cheerfully  invite 
to  their  communion  the  Baptists,  who  totally  and  con- 
stantly oppose  it. 

"  New-England  churches  will  suffer  no  man  to  con- 
tinue a  member  of  their  communion  who  scruples  in- 
fant baptism,  or  refuses  to  be  present  at  the  adminis- 
tration of  it ;  and  he  that  opposes  infant  baptism,  or 
purposely  departs  the  congregation  at  the  administra- 
tion of  that  ordinance,  is  liable,  by  their  laws,  to  sen- 
tence of  BANISHMENT."  Dr.Lightfoot'sWork«.Tol.2.p,531. 

Although  Congregationalists  will  exclude  from  their 
churches,  and  banish  from  the  country,  those  who  op- 
18 


206 

pose  infant  sprinkling,  still  they  say  they  wish  for  a 
Christian  union  with  the  Baptists.  We  can  assure 
them  that  we  are  desirous  of  an  union  on  gospel 
grounds ;  but  while  baptism  in  faith  and  practice  is 
the  great  bar  between  us,  it  devolves  on  pedobaptists 
to  remove  it.  This  they  can  do,  consistently  with 
themselves  and  the  Bible,  while  we  can  not ;  for  they 
plead  that  immersion,  pouring,  and  sprinkling,  are 
equally  valid  baptism.  Now  all  they  have  to  do  is 
to  drop  their  sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  practice  im- 
mersion 07ili/j  and  this  difficulty  is  removed  ;  and 
while  it  is  just  as  far  from  us  to  the  pedobaptists  as  it 
is  from  the  pedobaptists  to  us,  if  they  wish  an  union, 
why  not  come  over  ;  especially,  as  they  can  do  it 
without  any  sacrifice  of  principle.  But  we  can  not  go 
over  to  the  pedobaptists  without  a  sacrifice  of  princi- 
ple ;  for  if  we  commune  with  them  before  they  re- 
nounce their  sprinkling,  we  either  grant  that  sprink- 
ling is  baptism,  or  that  baptism  is  not  a  prerequisite  to 
communion. 

Pedobaptists  say  they  will  commune  with  all  such 
persons  as  they  hope  to  meet  in  heaven  ;  but  still  they 
refuse  to  administer  baptism  to  the  inftints  of  persons 
who  are  not  members  of  their  church.  '■-  The  infants 
of  one  or  both  believing  parents  are  to  be  baptized, 

and  those  Only.^^     Saybrook  Platform,  chap.  29,  sec.  4. 

Here  they  declare  that  the  infants  of  unconverted 
per-sons  are  not  saved,  or  confess  themselves  close 
communion  and  close  baptism  too,  for  they  withhold 
both  ordinances  from  these  infants;  and  even  their 
own  baptized  infant  church  members,  to  whom  they 
say  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace  are  sealed, 
(among  which  blessings  must  be  the  Lord's  supper,) 
are  not  admitted  to  the  communion,  and  many  pedo- 
baptists have  complained  of  this  close  communion 
conduct.  '^  I  confess  myself  yet  unsatisfied  as  to  any 
coavincing  argument  whereby  it  can  be  proved  that 


207 

?.ny  were  denied  admission  to  the  Lord's  supper,  who 
were  owned  as  members."  Dr.Liohtfoot'sWorks,voi.ii.p.433. 

"  If  infants  are  capable  of  admission  to  the  cliurch 
above,  they  must  be  equally  fit  subjects  of  that  on 
earth :  whom  God  receives  as  subjects  of  his  grace, 
we  have  no  right  to  exclude  from  the  visible  fellow- 
ship of  his  people."       ^  a  sawyer's  critical  DissertatioB,  p.  12. 

The  reason  why  pedobaptists  have  such  struggles 
of  conscience  about  infant  communion,  is  because 
they  know  that  Christ  has  said,  Matt.  xix.  14,  "  Siiffer 
the  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto 
me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.''''  Mark 
X.  14 ;  Luke  xviii.  16.  But  they  are  keeping  these  in- 
faat  church  members /row  Christ  and  his  sacrament 
of  the  supper,  to  which  they  are  as  justly  entitled  as 
they  are  to  baptism  ;  and  how  can  a  mother  feel  re- 
coiieiied  ia  receiving  the  elements  from  the  hands  of 
a  priest  who  is  so  close  coramunion  that  he  will  not 
allow  her  to  give  a  bit  of  the  sacramental  bread  to  her 
own  baptized  infant  which  she  holds  in  her  arms. — 
It  is  replied  by  some,  that  infants  are  incapable  of  ex- 
amining themselves,  and  therefore  should  not  eat  : 
But  they  are  equally  incapable  of  believing ,  and  there- 
fore should  not  be  baptized.  If  the  Bible  warrants 
giving  one  ordinance,  it  does  both.  Matthew  xix.  6, 
^-  What  therefore  God  hath  joined  together,  let  not 
man  put  asunder." 

Pedobaptists  plead  that  they  are  sincere  in  believ- 
ing that  sprinkling  is  baptism,  therefore  it  is  right. — 
But  if  sincerity  makes  a  practice  right,  then  the  Bap^ 
tists  are  right  also,  for  we  sincerely  believe  that  im- 
mersion is  baptism  and  sprinkling  is  not:  and  while 
communion  is  a  church  act,  we  can  not  extend  it  be- 
yond church  government  and  fellowship:  for  how  can 
we  commune  with  those  over  whose  conduct  we  have 
OQ  control 


208 

In  speaking  of  the  immersion  of  females,  Mr.  Saw- 
yer says,  page  23,  '•  There  is  often  a  severe  struggle 
in  their  minds  between  propriety  and  duty,  and  if  the 
latter  prevails,  as  agreeably  to  their  belief  it  ought,  it 
prevails  at  the  expense  of  the  former.  Effusion  and 
sprinkling  are  free  from  any  objections  of  this  kind, 
and  are  adapted  to  excite  only  the  purest  and  most 
spiritual  affections."  I  could  reply,  by  relating  many 
substantial  facts,  one  of  which  must  suffice  : — 

In  Monroe  county,  New- York,  there  lived  a  Mrs. 

,  who    believed  that  im.mersion   was  baptism, 

but  did  not  believe  in  close  communion  :  to  get  clear 
of  the  latter,  she  concluded  to  exchange  the  former  for 
sprinkling,  and  accordingly  united  with  the  Presbyte- 
rians. At  the  time  she  was  sprinkled  the  Spirit  re- 
proved her,  and  she  knew  she  was  doing  wrong ;  but 
for  the  sake  of  enjoying  open  communion  she  submit- 
ted to  it,  and  took  her  seat  at  the  Lord's  table.  "When 
the  bread  was  approaching  her  conscience  told  her 
that  she  was  not  baptized,  and  therefore  ought  not  to 
commune:  she  was  much  distressed,  and  declined. — 
When  the  wine  was  passed  she  was  still  more  dis- 
tressed, and  refused  to  partake.  She  now  looked 
round  upon  the  communicants,  and  realized  that  they 
were  all  partaking  without  being  baptized,  and  she 
said  the  place  appeared  horrible  to  her.  She  arose 
and  left  the  house,  and  like  Peter,  she  went  out  and 
wept  bitterly,  and  remained  out  until  the  congregation 
was  dismissed.  She  stepped  into  the  carriage,  bidding 
farewell  to  the  place,  and  a  few  days  after  this  she  re- 
lated these  exercises,  together  with  her  religious  expe- 
rience, to  us,  and  I  baptized  her ;  and  she  often  af- 
terwards referred  to  this  effectual  and  practical  cure 
ef  open  communion. 

I  shall  close  these  remarks  in  the  language  of  Dr 
Lightfoot.  "  This  new  notion  of  occasional  com- 
munion in  some  parts  of  worship,  (Lord's  supper.)  ex- 


209 

clusively  to  others,  (exchanging  pulpits,  church  dis 
cipline,  6cc.)  is  disowned  by  all  sorts  of  (consistent 
churches,  and  is  a  late  fancy ^  taken  up  purposely  U 

avoid  the  charge  of  superstition. — Why 

should  not  those  general  rules  of  approving  the  things 
that  are  most  excellent,  and  holding  fast  that  which  is 
good,  persuade  such  a  man  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  leave 
the  best  communion,  merely  to  show  what  defective 
and  tolerable  churches  he  can  communicate  with  ; 
which  is  as  if  a  man  should  forsake  his  rauskmellon  to 
let  others  see  what  pumpkins  he  can  swallow." 

Dr.  Ltghtfoot's  Worts,  toI.  ii.  p,  531. 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

This  expression  is  sometimes  written  simply,  He 
shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit^  ivllveifiaT^aytw; 
as  Mark  i.  8 :  Acts  i.  5 :  John  i.  33—  sometimes  fuliy^ 
in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire ^  sv  llvs^ffzaTiaymxatTtvgt; 
as  Matt.  iii.  I]  :  Luke  iii.  16.  This  phraseology  cor- 
responds exactly  with  the  Greek,  and  is  supported  by 
nearly  all  the  ancient  versions,  as  well  as  by  many 
eminent  critics.  lIvEVjLiaaYtotxaiTivQj  Uhe  Holy  Spirit 
and  fire,'  is  put  for  nvg  nvev^arog  aytov,  the  fire  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  or  nvsvfia  ayiov  nvQog,  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
fire.  Compare  1  Kings  xix.  12,  Heb.  '  stillness  and 
a  voice,'  for  a  still  voice.  Ex.  xiv.  20,  '  a  cloud  and 
darkness,'  for  a  dark  cloud.  Matt.  iv.  16,  ;^aj^  xa*  gxia 
davaiov, '  the  region  and  shadow  of  death,'  for  x^aqa  gxiag 
daruTov,  the  region  of  the  shadow  of  death,  as  some 
MSS.  actually  read  in  Isa.  ix.  2 :  Luke  xxi.  15,  gxa/ia 

x««  goq)ia,     '  a  mOUth   and  wisdom,'    for  grdfia  aocpiag,    a 

mouth  of  wisdom,  perhaps  equivalent  to  Xdyog  ao<ptag, 
1  Cor.  xii.  8.  Compare  also  Acts  vi.  10,  go(pia  xut 
jfyfiv^,  *  wisdom  and  spirit,'  with  Eph.  i.  17,  nvev^ 
9o<fMMs,  i^pirit  of  wisdom.  IIi^,  Jirc,  is  taken  for  the 
18* 


210 

element  of  light.  Some  oriental  nations  at  the  pres- 
ent day,  in  metaphorical  expressions,  use  the  term^re 
for  light. 

It  was  predicted  that  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  should 
be  distinguished  by  the  prevalence  of  spiritual  light  of 
knowledge.  Dan.  xii.  4,  Many  shall  run  to  and  fro, 
and  knowledge  shall  be  increased.  Isa.  liv.  13,  And 
all  thy  children  shall  be  taught  of  the  Lord.  Jer. 
xxxi.  34,  And  they  shall  teach  no  more  every  man 
his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying,  Know 
the  Lord  ;  for  they  shall  all  know  me,  from  the  least 
of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the  Lord. 
Compare  Heb.  viii.  and  1  John  v.  20.  Agam  it  is 
said,  Isa.  xlij.  6,  7,  I  will  give  thee  (i.  e.  the  Messiah) 
for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles  ;  to  open  the  blind  eyes,  to 
bring  out  the  prisoners  from  the  prison,  and  them  that 
sit  in  darkness  out  of  the  prison-house.  Isa.  Ix.  1, 
Arise,  shine  ;  for  thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of 
the  Lord  is  risen  upon  thee.  Accordingly  in  the  New 
Testament  Christ  is  called  the  light  of  the  worid,  and 
his  people,  the  children  of  light,  iioi  q^wxt;.  They 
were  once  darkness  ;  but  ore  now  light  in  the  Lord. 
They  were  blind,  but  God  hath  shined  in  their  hearts. 
The  eyes  of  their  understanding  are  enlightened. — 
They  have  received  the  Spirit  of  God,  that  they  may 
know  the  things  that  are  freely  given  to  them  of  God. 
Thus  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  is  generally  distin- 
guished as  a  dispensation  of  light :  and  in  the  apos- 
tolical age.  Christians,  especially  the  teachers  of  Chris- 
tianity, enjoyed  the  miraculous  influence  of  the  Spirit. 
Hence,  to  denote  how  universally  their  mind  was  per- 
vaded with  spiritual  light,  they  were  said  to  be  haj)- 
tized,  i.  e.  immersed,  in  the  Spirit  of  light.  Baptizo 
just  as  clearly  signifies  immersion  in  this  connection, 
as  it  does  in  any  other.  The  Greek  fathers  could  not 
have  been  mistaken  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  expres- 
sion ;  and  they  certainly  understood  it  in  this  sense. 


211 

Theophylact,  commenting  on  the  wordsj  '  Be  shall 
baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit,^  etc.  Matt.  iii.  11 :  saj^s, 
'  That  is.  Me  shall  inundate  you,  toutcst*,  xaTaxlvgst'  v/xac, 
abundantly  with  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit.'  Cyril  of  Je- 
rusalem, Cateches.  17j  8j  says  :  '  For  as  he  that  goes 
down  into  the  water  and  is  baptized,  is  surrounded  on 
all  sides  by  the  water,  so  the  apostles  were  totally  bap- 
tized (immersed)  by  the  Spirit.  The  water  surrounds 
the  body  externally,  but  the  Spirit  incomprehensibly 
baptizes  (immerses)  the  soui  within.' 

That  '  baptism  in  the  Spirit  and  fire,'  is  sproken  of 
the  illuminating  influences  of  the  Spirit,  'will  appear 
from  several  considerations.  The  prophecy  of  Joel, 
quoted  by  Peter,  Acts  ii.  17,  18.,  naturally  leads  us  to 
this  conclusion.  Dreams  and  visions  were  the  usual 
means  by  which  God  revealed  his  will ;  and  these 
terms  taken  figuratively,  denote  here  the  extraordinary 
communications  of  spiritual  knowledge  which  his 
servants  should  enjoy  under  the  gospel  dispensation. 

The  design  of  this  baptism  conducts  to  the  same 
view  of  the  .subject.  The  introduction  of  the  gospel 
was  the  most  remarkable  event  in  the  annals  of  time  ; 
it  was  the  commencement  of  a  mighty  revolution,  or 
the  moral  regeneration  of  the  v/orld  ;  (Matt.  xix.  28  ;) 
and  the  point  of  time  occupied  by  the  first  Christian 
teachers,  was  one  of  infinite  importance.  The  bigoted 
Jew  and  the  superstitious  Gentile,  were  equally  and 
inveterately  hostile  to  the  cause.  Hence  it  was  need- 
ful for  them  to  be  endued  with  clear  and  accurate  per- 
ceptions of  divine  truth,  as  well  as  with  an  intellectual 
energy  and  moral  courage,  and  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit 
were  designed  to  furnish  them  with  these  qualifica- 
tions. Accordingly  Jesus  told  the  apostles  not  to  pre- 
meditate when  they  were  brought  before  magistrates 
and  kings ;  for  the  Holy  Ghost  should  teach  them 
what  to  say — that  the  Comforter,  the  Holy  Ghost, 
should  teach  them  all  things,   and  bring  all  things  to 


212 

their  remembrance  which  he  had  said  to  them— and 
that  they  should  receive  power  after  the  Hol^  Ghost 
v/as  come  upon  them;  and  should  be  witnesses  for 
him,  both  in  Jerusalem  and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Sama- 
ria, and  unto  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth. 

Some  persons  have  supposed  that  regeneration  and 
the  baptism  of  the   Holy  Spirit  is  one  and  the  same 
th mo;^,  but  this  is  evidently  a  mistake  ;  for  we  find  ma- 
ny Christians  spoken  of  in  the  Bible  who  were  never 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  while  others  in  distinc- 
tion from  them  are   spoken  of  as  being  thus  baptized.- 
The   baptism  of  the    Holy  Spirit  was  a  miracle,  and 
usually  conferred  to  prepare  the  subject  of  it  for  some 
njiraculous    work,     as   prophecying,     speaking    with 
tongues,  6oc. ;    and  of  course  ceased  when  the  Scrip- 
tures were  all  written,  as  other  miracles  did.      It  was 
not  only  a  distinct  action  from  regeneration,  but  usual- 
ly subsequent  to  it.      Thus  Jesus   Christ,    who  never 
was  regenerated,  was   baptized   with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Luke  iii.  22:   Isa.  xlii.  I:  Ixi.  1.     John  baptized  p)en- 
itent   believers  in  water,  but  these  were    to  be  subse- 
quently baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Jesus  Christ. 
Matt.  iii.    11.      The  apostles  were  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  long  after  they  were  regenerated  and  call- 
ed to  the  apostleship.      John  xx.  22  :    Acts  i.   5 — 8  : 
ii.  4  :     iv.  8.     The   promise  of  the    gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  Acts  ii.  38,  was  on  condition  that  they  should 
first  repent  and   be  baptized.     The  disciples  at  Sama- 
ria believed,  Acts  viii.  12,  and  were  baptized  with  wa- 
ter ;     but  afterwards,  when  the  apostles  came  down, 
they  were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Aets  viii.  14 

17.     Paul  received   the  Holy  Ghost  after   he  was 

converted.  Acts  ix.  17.  Cornelius,  who  feared  God 
with  all  his  house^  Acts  x.  2,  was  baptized  with  all 
his  house  and  spake  with  tongues,  Acts  x.  44 — 47 : 
XI  15_17.  The  twelve  believers  whom  John  had 
baptized,  Acts  xix.  2 — 6,  were  baptized  with  the  Holy 


213 

Ghost  and  spake  with  tongues  and  prophecied ;  and 
the  uniform  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  are,  Eph.  i. 
13,  ^^  After  that  ye  believed  ye  were  sealed  with  that 
Holy  Spirit  of  promise,"  and  all  the  recorded  effects  of 
this  baptism  go  to  confirm  this  idea.  It  seems  proba- 
ble from  Acts  ix.  17,  that  Paul  received  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit  immediately  after  liis  conversion.  Noth- 
ing, however,  is  here  said  of  the  effects ;  but  from 
other  passages  we  learn  that  he  •  spake  with  tongues,' 
'  wrought  miracles,'  etc. 


CONTENTS 


Preface,                          -             »             .  .             3 

Review  of  Mr.  Sawyer  on  the  action  of  Baptism,          7 

Do.  on  the  subjects  of  Baptism,  -             -=19 

The  Covenants,         .             .             „  ,             26 

1  Covenant  of  Redemption,               -  -             -       29 

2  Covenant  of  Grace,                   -             -  -             30 

3  Covenant  of  Circumcision,            -  -             -       33 

4  The  Mosaic  Covenant,              -             -  -             44 

The  Church  of  God,                    -  -             -       49 

1  Christ'^  Priesthood  not  Jewish,             -  -             50 

2  The  Jewish  Church  and  the  Church  of  God  not  one 

and  the  same,               -             -  -             -       60 

4  The  origin  of  the  Arians,         -             -  -             71 

3  Pagan  Persecutions,           -             -  -             -       68 

5  The  origin  of  the  Roman  Catholics  and  Papal  per- 

secutions,       -             -             -  -             -72 

3  The  origin  of  the  Lutherans,                -  -             75 

7  The  origin  of  the  Presbyterians,  -             -       75 

@  The  origin  of  the  Congregationalists,  -             76 

9  The  origin  of  the  Episcopalians,  -             -       76 

10  The  origin  of  the  Methodists,               -  -             77 

11  The  origin  of  the  Baptists,            -  -             -       76 

Subjects  of  Baptism,              -             -  -             98 

1  The  Baptism  of  John,                    -  -             -     106 

2  The  Baptism  of  our  Savior,                  -  -           107 

3  John's  Baptism  and  Christian  Baptism  the  same,       109 

4  Tlie  Baptism  of  the  Apostles,        -  -             -     112 

5  The  origin  of  Infant  Baptism,             -  -             124 

6  The  evils  of  Infant  Baptism,         -  -             -     130 

The  action  of  BAPTisat,  (prepositions,)  -           134 

1  Mosaic  Baptisms,               -             -  -             -     137 

2  The  waters  of  Palestine,          -             -  -           148 

3  Tlie  origin  of  Sprinkling,               -  -             -     145 

4  Versions  of  the  Bible,              -             -  -           146 

5  Direct  arguments  for  Immorsion,  -             -     1&4 

6  Lexicons,         ...             -  -           IM 

7  The  classic  use  of  §«^mm,                -  -             -     15$ 


216  COlfTEKTS. 

Pape 

8  The  classic  use  of  §amtZfo,       -             -             -  159 

9  The  Sacred  use  of  ^anioi^               .             -  -     159 

10  The  Sacred  use  of  §amttfa,      .             .              -  160 

11  Baptism  a  burial,                -             -              ^  -     165 

12  The  Savior's  Baptism  an  example  for  believers,  166 

13  Baptism  a  saving  ordinance,                 -             .-  *•    169 

The  Lord's  Supper,         -             -             .     -^  .     170 

1  Infant  Communion,      -             -              -              -  172 

2  Scotch  Churches  Close  Communion,          -  -     175 

3  Saybrook  Platform,      -             -             -             -  176 

4  The  Baptist  persecuted  in  America,           -  -     178 

5  The  Church  of  England  Close  Communion,  184 

6  The  Methodist  Close  Communion,             -       ^  -     187 

7  The  Scriptures  prove  Close  Communion,         -  190 

8  Pedobaptist  objections  ansvi^ered,                 -  -     192 

Baptism  op  the  Holy  Spirit,    -             -  -       209 


ERRATA. 

In  some  copies,  page  97,  read  Ireneatis  instead  of  Clement. 

Page  102,  did  grant  liberty,  instead  of  great  liberty. 

Page  113,  for  saving  read  miraculous. 

Page  114,  for  Whitley,  read  Whitby, 

Page  135,  for  Deut.  xiv,  15,  16,  read  Lev.  xiv.  15, 16. 

Page  153,  for  congregation,  re'ad  church. 


Mr.  Chapin,  page  79,  is  an  Episcopal  minister  and  tditor 
of  the  Chronicle. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  tke  year  1838? 
by  Israel  Robosds,  in  the  Clerk's  office  in  the  District  ©f 
<!Jonnecticut. 


